I can become greater than Heavenly Father ?

[Gordon]

My not understanding does not come from a lack of knowledge, but a failure for YOU to make sense.

No, it comes from your unwillingness to accept.

The argument of scripture being changed is utterly ridiculous.

It is? Then why are there missing books from the Bible? Isn't that being 'changed'?

Has the book of mormon been changed?

Not like that. Changes to errors made in spelling, puncuation, and grammer is not even close to lost books, verses, changed meanings, and translation after translation - in the same language - being made.

...but do you believe that man is capable of stopping/obstructing/limiting or somehow lessen the power of God by manipulating his book?

You somehow think that the Lord came down himself with a completed copy of the Bible and said 'Here is my Word, my Book, follow it and none else - for it shall never change, and you need no more information than this'. Well, that didn't happen. The Bible is a collection of books written by prophets, collected by and perserved by man - HUGE difference!

Remember the Apostasy? Well, the Lord said he would cover the Earth in darkness, they would be drunken, the prophets/apostles would be taken away, no more revelations, visions, or anything. He left the World alone for a season - which means that they were free to do what they wanted. Does that make sense to you? Changing some writtings on paper does not change the Gospel of Christ. The Gospel of Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. But, and here's the kicker, how people VIEW that Gospel DOES change. Why did the Savior have to come here to TEACH to Gospel, when it had already been given (see Adam, Noah, Moses, etc)? How could he 'let' man 'manipulate' his 'word', his 'book'? Remember, there was already scripture given - Jesus quoted from them often. Weren't they given to man to know of the Gospel? Yet, they didn't understand them. Why is that any different now? Are the people today just so much wiser, and pure of heart than those from before, that we cannot be corrupted? If so, then why does the Lord have to return to 'cleanse' the Earth of the wicked, if we are so much better?

If so, then the God  you serve is not very powerful, if he can be controlled and manipulated by the stroke of a mans hand.

It's called free agency. Man will not stop the Gospel, but the Lord will not take away free agency. Isn't that what the Devil wanted to do in the first place? Force people to be perfect - prevent them from doing anything bad, such as changing scripture?

Jesus praying to the father is acceptable and a well accepted view of the Trinity

Trinity? Can you find that word in the scriptures for me? I think I can find Jesus saying that the Father sent him, not I sent myself. You see, your interpretation - man's - is abstract, foreign, not from the scripture. It is man made, used to try to define and explain what they do not understand. Just like you, you cannot understand how the Lord can say he is the only G-d, and there is none beside him, yet there be a separate Father and Son. So, you come up with this weird morphing, unrecognizable, lifeless, unfamilar, being thing to describe things. Well, its not so difficult. You don't need to go to years of seminary to 'understand' the 'Trinity'. All you have to do is know that the Father and the Son are separate, and that the Father has given ALL authority over us to his son. So, the Son is the only G-d that we have to deal with in this life, in that he is the Judge, the Savior, the only way to get back to our Father. He is the Gospel, he is the Moderator, the one who has given us the laws, commandments, scripture, etc. But, the Father, he is our Father in Heaven. He is the one we - including Jesus - pray to, he is the Father of our spirits, he is the one that is the father of our Savior as well. He too, is G-d, but he has delegated all power concerning us, and this life to his Son.

If they were human beings then it would be impossible for them to be one in the same, but they are not...

They're not? Didn't Jesus come down here to gain a body? Didn't he have a resurrected body after his ascension? Won't he show that some body to use upon his return? What does he do with it in the mean time? Does he take it 'off' when he leaves this life, only to 'put it back on' when he returns? This doesn't make much sense does it. Can't you see how abstract your reasoning is? The Gospel is so simple, stop trying to make it so difficult.

Isaiah 45:5 states I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:  If you don't do anything else, I would like for YOU to tell me what this scritpure and the others that I provided you mean?

I think that I pretty much have already. Here goes again: AS TO US, AND THIS LIFE, there is only one G-d with which we have anything to do. There is only one that rules over us, will judge us, and presides over us - there is no other. The Lord doesn't have to 'fight off' other G-ds to keep us to himself - they're ALL perfect! Why would they argue, fight, squabble, and via for power, postition, and glory?? Can you imagine the Savior being that way? I sure can't.

Study?  So God wants us to read his word?

Yes, of course we are supposed to study it out - FIRST! In both the Bible and BoM, it tells us to study it out in our mind, we must learn and ponder, THEN we must ask - and that answer can ONLY COME BY THE HG - TRUTH!

Your NOT supposed to just study it out for yourself, and then leave it at that, for that would be relying on your own heart - which we have been warned against.

You want to know how you can discern between spirits, well, how do you know Jesus is the Christ? How do you know that the Bible contains inspired scripture? If you say from the HG - the only way you can KNOW - then how do he let you know? Do you remember the feeling, the pure love of Christ? If its different then that, then it would be false. If you feel confused, empty, cold, whatever, then it isn't right.

If the books were not there you would not know the HG from Satan.

And without the HG, you wouldn't know that the scriptures were true.

If you are not to use the bible in order to "TEST" the spirits as the book of John has revealed to us, what do we use?

Your hand.

...but you don't know how it all started?

Why is this so hard for you to understand? Where does it say that the prophet knows all? We know what we need for Salvation - that is what we need. Sometimes prophets are given things to know because of their faith, and they make comments. We can take those comments for what its worth, but until the next life, we will not know all those things. This isn't a hard thing to understand.

The Restored Gospel is just that - the restoration of the Gospel, not ALL TRUTH FOR ALL TIME.

You claim to have the full truth and can't even tell when or where the real truth started?

Why do we have to know this? How will this help us to receive Salvation?

You see Jesus had to deal with being 100% man and 100% deity all at the same time...

Isn't that 200%? Why don't the laws of Physics pertain to the Lord?

...so from that union between deity and flesh he was lesser than God the father because of his physical body placed limitations upon him.

Any scripture for this idea? Is sounds pretty abstract to me. I know nothing like this is mentioned in the scriptures.

After all of this there are two main questions...

Answered these in the above response.

[rhinomelon]

Trinity? Can you find that word in the scriptures for me? I think I can find Jesus saying that the Father sent him, not I sent myself. You see, your interpretation - man's - is abstract, foreign, not from the scripture.

The word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. Of course, the phrase "eternal progression" is not found anywhere in the LDS Scriptures, a fact which is much more germane to this discussion.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Tanyan]

Do not attempt to ajust your set [Computer/Screen] WE control the horizontal [ THE DOCTRINE] WE control the vertical [ How you percieve what Doctrine actualy IS and its proper interpetation therof], so sit back and spend the next few moments in time and let us show and tell you what you really believe. You have just entered THE OUTER LIMITS OF EARLY ISRAELITE/CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE AND HOW IT IS TO BE INTERPETED !!!. GRACE TO ALL.

[noahnoah]

It is? Then why are there missing books from the Bible? Isn't that being 'changed'?

It depends. There could be books missing and the argument still be ridiculous. We would need to know 2 things. First what books did God plan for us to have in the present day..and secondly what books we actually have today. Now if you can show me proof that by Gods design there were books that were supposed to be available to me today that aren't, then you may be right. But if all you can do is conjure up some reference about missing books, that just means there may have been more books at one time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were intended for us to have today? In other words, you are saying that the missing books constitute or qualify as a "change". My question to you is what should the books or would the books be like if they weren't changed? If you can't tell me that, then you argument of just saying that they "just are" IS ridiculous.

On the topic of changes, you say that the book that I believe to be the one and true inspired book from God has missing books, verses, and changed meanings. Will you or can you show me some of these missing verses and changed meanings? Granted, there are many translations, but different translations do not amount to changes, but merely translations. Some of the older translations are still available, so you still have a choice to read the new translations or stick with what you have. Here are a few of the changes in the BOM that I came across and I would like for you to categorize these changes as either spelling, grammatical or punctuation or OTHER?

1830 Edition BOM: Nephi pg. 25 "behold the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh

Today BOM: 1 Nephi 11:18 "behold the virgin which thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of flesh

You somehow think that the Lord came down himself with a completed copy of the Bible and said 'Here is my Word, my Book, follow it and none else - for it shall never change, and you need no more information than this'.

No I just believe in faith when I read scritpures, such as the Lord telling Peter that upon this rock he will build his church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and when Paul tells the galatians that if any man preaches any other gospel than what he has taught then to let them be accursed. Galatians 1:8 basically tells us to follow the gospel and none else and if it was to change then he wouldn't tell us to curse anything that was different. Those two scriptures satisfy your your conditions of "Here is my Word", "my book", "follow it and none else for it shall never change", "you need no more information than this" quite well! And No I don't remember the apostasy, that is another one of the beliefs that only you and your mormon fellows share. I do not believe an apostasy took place. Please provide me with scripture pertaining to the apostasy.

Why did the Savior have to come here to TEACH to Gospel, when it had already been given (see Adam, Noah, Moses, etc)? How could he 'let' man 'manipulate' his 'word', his 'book'? Remember, there was already scripture given - Jesus quoted from them often. Weren't they given to man to know of the Gospel?

As for Jesus, he did teach while he was here, but don't get it twisted. He didn't HAVE TO COME down here to teach. He came down here for the sole purpose of dying for our sins. THAT WAS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE, not to teach. Jesus could have sent any one of his apostles, disciples, anyone for that matter to teach, but the only one that could die for ALL OF OUR sins is Jesus himself. What makes you think he let someone manipulate his word, because people aren't perfect?? I don't understand what you are trying to tie together with that one? Because Jesus could still teach people more than they could ever read from scriptures doesn't = his word was manipulated? Jesus came to perfect/fulfill the law, thats why he came. To demonstrate to man, what he is to strive for, what he sould try to be, etc...etc. Yes, they were given to man to know of the gospel, but Jesus christ could come down to earth this very moment and teach every mormon on the face of this earth because even if you DID have the true gospel you are not perfect!! Bottomline. You make it sound like if you hold the truth in your hand you can't do wrong????

It's called free agency. Man will not stop the Gospel, but the Lord will not take away free agency. Isn't that what the Devil wanted to do in the first place? Force people to be perfect - prevent them from doing anything bad, such as changing scripture?

Free agency allows man to do what HE wants, but a mans free ageny does not TRUMP the power of GODS word, as you seem to think. You say man will not stop the Gospel, but as if there is another side of the coin. I know the Lord wil not take away mans free agency, nobody said he would. But you have to stand on one side of the argument, either Man CANNOT stop the Gospel, or you free agency spill which basically says that GOD will not stop a man from doing what he wants even to the extent that it pollutes and dissolves Gods purpsoe. Devil wanting to prevent people from doing bad???????????????? WHAT?? You and I must know two different devils??? Sounds like mormons know a nice and loving devil.

Trinity? Can you find that word in the scriptures for me? I think I can find Jesus saying that the Father sent him, not I sent myself. You see, your interpretation - man's - is abstract, foreign, not from the scripture. It is man made, used to try to define and explain what they do not understand. Just like you, you cannot understand how the Lord can say he is the only G-d, and there is none beside him, yet there be a separate Father and Son. So, you come up with this weird morphing, unrecognizable, lifeless, unfamilar, being thing to describe things. Well, its not so difficult. You don't need to go to years of seminary to 'understand' the 'Trinity'. All you have to do is know that the Father and the Son are separate, and that the Father has given ALL authority over us to his son. So, the Son is the only G-d that we have to deal with in this life, in that he is the Judge, the Savior, the only way to get back to our Father. He is the Gospel, he is the Moderator, the one who has given us the laws, commandments, scripture, etc. But, the Father, he is our Father in Heaven. He is the one we - including Jesus - pray to, he is the Father of our spirits, he is the one that is the father of our Savior as well. He too, is G-d, but he has delegated all power concerning us, and this life to his Son.

Thanks for asking and answering your own questions? Or did I say that the word Trinity was in the bible? No I didn't. I'm very interested in your opinion of this verse found in 1 John:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. ?? Your response without any additional words added to the scripture would be nice for a change?

Right alongside of your reference to Jesus saying that the Father sent him, I can find Father, Jesus, and the HG all being called God and then told numerous times in Isaiah (which you ignore, or add your two words to the end of the scripture saying IN THIS WORLD or ON THIS EARTH.....we both know your interpretatin is NOT IN SCRIPTURE) that there is only 1 God? You figure that one out. In addition Jesus made it clear that it was acceptable to pray and worship 1 GOD only, and when people worshipped and prayed to him, he didn't rebuke them. You go figure that one out.

Just like you, you cannot understand how the Lord can say he is the only G-d, and there is none beside him, yet there be a separate Father and Son.

Yes I cannot understand this:

I AM THE ONLY GOD and THERE IS NONE BESIDE ME, yet I AM NOT THE ONLY GOD AND THERE IS SOMEONE BESIDE ME??????? What? And to tell you the truth, YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS not if you truly believe the scritptures that you read. You can simply believe what someone else told you. No one in their right mind could read those to statements and say that they do not contradict. WOW? Unbelieveable.

As far as the Trinity goes, he doesn't morph (thats your word), no one said lifeless (but you), unrecognizable maybe? Would you recognize God the Father is you saw him? All I have to say on this is that you criticize me for expounding and going out TOO FAR on Gods makeup and I criticize you for bringing him down too low and trying to view him as a man. Your view lowers gods status, my view raises his status.

They're not? Didn't Jesus come down here to gain a body? Didn't he have a resurrected body after his ascension? Won't he show that some body to use upon his return? What does he do with it in the mean time? Does he take it 'off' when he leaves this life, only to 'put it back on' when he returns? This doesn't make much sense does it. Can't you see how abstract your reasoning is? The Gospel is so simple, stop trying to make it so difficult.

Again, Jesus did not come down here TO GET A BODY. He had to have a body while he was here but he did not come down here TO GET A BODY. Now, what you seem to fail to understand are the dynamics of the resurrected body. Its not like ours now. The body we received (just like Jesus) when we are resurrected are the most perfect bodies capable of doing alot more than we as mere humans. In other words, you see Jesus as being in heaven with a body like us. WRONG. He may have a body, but it cannot be confined by walls, time, space etc. As far as this discussion goes, if having a body means he is limited in physical abilities as we are, then no he doesn't have a body, at least not like ours. So he doesn't have to hassle with what he does with it in the mean time, or putting it back on, or taking it off, and you're right Jesus having to go through all that stuff to worry about his body DOESN'T make sense at all, I was wondering what would make you think something like that?

You want to know how you can discern between spirits, well, how do you know Jesus is the Christ? How do you know that the Bible contains inspired scripture? If you say from the HG - the only way you can KNOW - then how do he let you know? Do you remember the feeling, the pure love of Christ? If its different then that, then it would be false. If you feel confused, empty, cold, whatever, then it isn't right.

Question with a question? An answer would be nice. Unless your answer is a feeling of PURE LOVE OF CHRIST? Could I get a polling on what exactly that is? I'm going out on a limb, but I'm pretty sure everyone would find it to be something different. So I have concluded two things from your answer, 1. You test the spirits using your feelings 2. Supposedly, if the feeling is a good one "like the pure love of christ" then its good and if its a bad feeling its "BAD"

Thats pretty complex, if you get a bad feeling its bad and if you get a good one its good! Aren't you aware of sick people in the world that get good feelings from doing bad things? Is that your answer?

Yes, of course we are supposed to study it out - FIRST! In both the Bible and BoM, it tells us to study it out in our mind, we must learn and ponder, THEN we must ask - and that answer can ONLY COME BY THE HG - TRUTH!

2 Timothy speaks of nothing about the holy ghost it simply says study to show thyself approved....., rightfully dividing the word of truth. Call me an overanalyzer but it is saying if you study and know the word inside and out you will be able to discern truth from deceit? Is that a stretch? I know the HG reveals things to you ALSO, don't get me wrong.

And without the HG, you wouldn't know that the scriptures were true.

AMEN, now we're cooking. I'm in 100% agreement. The only reason I said that without the books you wouldn't know the HG from satan, is because you seem to OVER-EMPHASIZE (what you are calling the HG) the confirmation over the reading and I'm simply saying that they are almost equally important. If the HG always reveals the truth, then it would seem like you wouldn't really NEED a bible or BOM because you could always petition the HG to find out if what you were doing or pondering was true??? Right? I don't think thats the case otherwise the Bible and the BOM are a waste of paper and time.

me:

You claim to have the full truth and can't even tell when or where the real truth started?

[Gordon]

First what books did God plan for us to have in the present day...

Ahh, back for more...

-How would you know what books G-d had 'planned' for us today?

Now if you can show me proof that by Gods design there were books that were supposed to be available to me today...

It's called the BoM. The 'proof' lies in the HG - only way, man.

...you are saying that the missing books constitute or qualify as a "change".

Isn't something that was there before, but not now, 'change'?

...what should the books or would the books be like if they weren't changed?

They would probabaly be similar to the books found in the BoM - you know, books that would help clear up Gospel mis-interpretations and (seemingly) contradictions.

Will you or can you show me some of these missing verses and changed meanings?

Well, I know the Lord told us that we MUST be 'born again' (through water of course), and I know that Jesus was baptized, but why isn't the 'Bible' clear on this topic? Why are so many 'Christians' not united on this? Is something missing?

1830 Edition BOM: Nephi pg. 25 "behold the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh

Today BOM: 1 Nephi 11:18 "behold the virgin which thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of flesh

You must have gotten this off one of those wonderful websites that want to 'explain' 'Mormonism'.

You see, in the 1830 edition, the term 'Son of God' was used to signify the Lord already, but in certain verses was replaced soley with 'God'. That, my friend, constitutes as correcting a mistake.

...such as the Lord telling Peter that upon this rock he will build his church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it...

Uhh, he was referring to Peter and/or the Gospel in general - not the 'Bible' - it didn't exist, and even if the Lord knew it would (your defense), Peter did not. Why would the Lord talk to Peter in reference to something that Peter didn't know about, and not even explain it to him? Strange...

...any other gospel...

Yeah, the Gospel: Jesus is the Christ - he Atoned for us so that we 'may' return to our Heavenly Father, the Plan of Salvation, Faith, Repentence, Baptism, etc., etc.

Tell me, how is the Restored Gospel different then that?

And I don't want to hear how it is different then Man's interpretation of the Gospel. We are strictly talking about what the Lord taught, not what you or anyone else 'infers' - such as believing in the 'Trinity' (that is Man's interpretation).

I do not believe an apostasy took place.

Well, that's too bad, because it did take place - it's pretty well documented (see Martin Luther - he knew about it).

Please provide me with scripture pertaining to the apostasy.

Why don't you read Isaiah again - since you like to refer to him.

He came down here for the sole purpose of dying for our sins.

'sole purpose'? You sure about that? What was the Resurrection for? Show? Why did he say he came to fulfill the Law (which you point out yourself)? Why did he say he came to establish the new Gospel?

What makes you think he let someone manipulate his word, because people aren't perfect??

Ahh, that's my point! Your almost there on this one.

See, the Lord gave his Gospel to man - and yes, they were commanded to write scripture. So, the 'World' had his 'Word', and - since they aren't perfect (as you point out), they don't follow it. They mis-understand, mis-interpret, and change it. So, the Lord - on many occasions - taught them what the Gospel really was - using scripture, of course. No, that wasn't the 'reason' he came here, but that wasn't my point.

You claim the 'Bible' is his 'Word', and he wouldn't let it be corrupted, but I point out, that it happened before, so why is it so impossible to think it could happen again?

...but a mans free ageny does not TRUMP the power of GODS word...

Never said, or thought, it did.

...either Man CANNOT stop the Gospel, or you free agency spill which...

Don't make this so difficult - it's not either or.

Listen, Man cannot change the Gospel (which isn't the 'Bible'). What the Lord says shall be fulfilled, and nothing can stop it. But....

On the other hand, he will not stop man from using his free agency. If Man decides to teach the Gospel differently - changing words written by prophets - the Lord will not stop them (he actually prophecies of them). Just because some words on paper get corrupted, doesn't mean that the Gospel itself has been frustrated.

That is why the BoM is so important - it proves that the Gospel cannot be stopped.

Devil wanting to prevent people from doing bad???????????????? WHAT?? You and I must know two different devils???

[noahnoah]

First what books did God plan for us to have in the present day...

Ahh, back for more...

-How would you know what books G-d had 'planned' for us today?

Absolutely, I contend honestly for my faith.

- I don't know what God had 'planned' for us today but I personally assume that the Lord would not abandon us. If I thought the books were changed or there were books missing I would defintely has some kind of proof, which you do not have.

It's called the BoM. The 'proof' lies in the HG - only way, man.

Really. So the proof lies in something subjective, unverifiable and when you really get down to it, YOUR FEELINGS which you don't know how to test, as scripture teaches us.

Will you or can you show me some of these missing verses and changed meanings?

Well, I know the Lord told us that we MUST be 'born again' (through water of course), and I know that Jesus was baptized, but why isn't the 'Bible' clear on this topic? Why are so many 'Christians' not united on this? Is something missing?

Thanks for fingerpointing to what SOME of the christians do but I asked to show me some of the missing verses? I didn't ask what christians are doing. What people do has nothing to do with whether verses are missing. I simply asked you to show me some of the missing verses and you start in on what is CLEAR in the bible??? There are many things that are clear in the bible that you do not live up to because you are a fallible human being. You've lied before in your life and thats absolutely clear, that we shouldn't and you have? So is that the bible fault? NOPE just yours because you are a sinner as we ALL are. So back the question I asked, which you skillfully eluded, where are the missing verses? Do you have any?

1830 Edition BOM: Nephi pg. 25 "behold the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of flesh

Today BOM: 1 Nephi 11:18 "behold the virgin which thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of flesh

You must have gotten this off one of those wonderful websites that want to 'explain' 'Mormonism'.

You see, in the 1830 edition, the term 'Son of God' was used to signify the Lord already, but in certain verses was replaced soley with 'God'. That, my friend, constitutes as correcting a mistake.

The Son of God is the Lord, so it doesn't need to be signified? Right? Certain verses were replaced with God? The son of god, is NOT God, so how can you use the interchangeably?

A mistake? So the BOM has mistakes and you have yet to show me any in the Bible? Which book was inspired by the hand of God and contains the real truth? I rest my case, AGAIN.

And I don't want to hear how it is different then Man's interpretation of the Gospel. We are strictly talking about what the Lord taught, not what you or anyone else 'infers' - such as believing in the 'Trinity' (that is Man's interpretation).

Mans interpretation? What do you have to say about 1 John 5:7? For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.?? It was the author of 1 John interpretation too! But wait let me guess, 1 John is wrong and Gordon is right?

Well, that's too bad, because it did take place - it's pretty well documented (see Martin Luther - he knew about it).

You go ahead and follw Martin Luther, I follow Jesus. Jesus TRUMPS Martin.

Why don't you read Isaiah again - since you like to refer to him.

I will read it again. I'll assume you don't have scriptures.

'sole purpose'? You sure about that? What was the Resurrection for? Show? Why did he say he came to fulfill the Law (which you point out yourself)? Why did he say he came to establish the new Gospel?

Sole purpose couldn't be more wrong. I made a mistake and thats

not what I meant. I meant, to say 'main objective'.

Ahh, that's my point! Your almost there on this one.

See, the Lord gave his Gospel to man - and yes, they were commanded to write scripture. So, the 'World' had his 'Word', and - since they aren't perfect (as you point out), they don't follow it. They mis-understand, mis-interpret, and change it. So, the Lord - on many occasions - taught them what the Gospel really was - using scripture, of course. No, that wasn't the 'reason' he came here, but that wasn't my point.

You claim the 'Bible' is his 'Word', and he wouldn't let it be corrupted, but I point out, that it happened before, so why is it so impossible to think it could happen again?

Keys:

The world not following his word perefectly is true. (even for you and other mormons because you are not perfect)

Since you are part of the World and and so are your prophets, do they mis-understand, mis-interpret, and change it? The conditions you have just outlined apply to you and your prophets too! You are the world and you are all man (imperfect)

The reason you haven't pointed out anything is because of what I've said above and in addition God didn't just have the local blacksmith write scripture. The individuals that wrote scripture were inspired by the hand of God (which I think the fact that you can't show me any changes, missing verses proves)

Don't make this so difficult - it's not either or.

Listen, Man cannot change the Gospel (which isn't the 'Bible'). What the Lord says shall be fulfilled, and nothing can stop it. But....

On the other hand, he will not stop man from using his free agency. If Man decides to teach the Gospel differently - changing words written by prophets - the Lord will not stop them (he actually prophecies of them). Just because some words on paper get corrupted, doesn't mean that the Gospel itself has been frustrated.

That is why the BoM is so important - it proves that the Gospel cannot be stopped.

Man cannot change gospel - agreed

God will not stop man from using his free agency - agreed

If the words changed on paper do not speak of what God intended then the Gospel itself has been frustrated?

OK, since I cannot explain it to you - since you accuse me of 'adding', I will simply do this in response: How does 1+1+1=1?

Since you can't explain it to me or since you can't explain it period? I'll simply do this in response, does 1x1x1=1?

No, my view makes it possible for us to know him - which he commanded us to do, and yours makes him strange to us.

Your view makes it possible for you to BE LIKE HIM, mine makes him a GOD which is strange and difficult to fully understand.

So, 2 Tim. is the only scripture we use?? What happened to reading ALL scripture? I know it talks about the HG for truth somewhere else - wouldn't they go together, since they are coming from the same 'WORD'

?

I have said all along that both can exist mutually. You seem to think the HG is the only thing that can provide truth, which 2 Tim refutes

Don't bugs walk on water? Nothing against Physics here.

Are you really not smart or are you acting not smart? Bugs walk on water because they are not dense enough to sink. Jesus was a man dense enough to sink but did not.

[Mormn=Cristian]

Noanoah said:

So the proof lies in something subjective, unverifiable

And I ask him:

You must be talking about the Bible, right...?

[Mormn=Cristian]

Noahnoah said:

Your view makes it possible for you to BE LIKE HIM, mine makes him a GOD which is strange and difficult to fully understand.

And yet, the Lord taught:

...1) "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ...", John 17:3

With that "understanding" of God, so much for eternal life...!

...2) "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect", Mat. 5:48

Noahnoah, what about going back to "basics"...?

[tubaloth]

So eternal progression really isn't eternal?

It is eternal in progressing in kingdoms and dominion not in gaining more power.

Without dodging the question and stating that it is POSSIBLE that we don't know everything, where did God come from and who was the first God?

The doctinre that Joseph Smith (and others) revealed wasn

[Gordon]

- I don't know what God had 'planned' for us today but I personally assume that the Lord would not abandon us.

[noahnoah]

...

[noahnoah]

See, that's what I was trying to get you to do earlier when you accused me of answering a question with a question - think for yourself. You kind of did, but not really.

You say you do not know what G-d has planned - which is what I was trying to get you to understand - yet you use that 'not knowing' as your defense of your assumtions - again, illogical reasoning.

You keep missing the point: Books given as scripture are missing from the Bible, how do we know? Well, other books in the Bible mention them, yet they are not there. You 'assume' that they aren't important for us, because that is the only way to explain how your interpretations of the Gospel are correct.

The proof: Again, the BoM - the Lord has given us additional scripture to testify of Christ, and to reveal the things that have been removed/lost from the books in the Bible. So no, the Lord has shown that he has not 'abandoned' us. It's right there in front of your face. Why will you not accept it?

Okay listen..........not knowing is not my defense. My defense is that it is more illogical and unchristian to search another book for the gospel other than the bible. I assume they aren't important because you can't tell me one flipping thing about the books that are missing that would justify their importance. Unless you can tell me something more than they are just missing, you have no point. You are claiming that the missing books are important without knowing what is in the books? Brilliant! Funny that the God in your BOM which is proof doesn't match up to the God in my scriptures. Not very good proof.

Your missing the whole point - why? The Bible speaks of baptism as a requirement, yet is unclear on how (to many people, not all). Wouldn't the Bible have covered this somewhere? Maybe THOSE are some of the missing verses...?

Besides, you want specific verses - which I can't give (hence, they're missing...). But, I have stated that there are missing books - don't books contain verses...?

But, the real way to know, is that the Lord has revealed some of these lost verses to his modern prophet - but since you will not accept him, nor his work, then that is a 'moo' point to you.

The bible does cover it. You must have not read my last post. Between the Bible and the BOM there are plenty things where even you as a mormon still fall short. DOes that mean the bible or the BOM is unclear?

You are taking scripture that simply speaks of missing books and inferring that the missing books are ones THAT CONTAIN THE WHOLE TRUTH or THE REST OF GODS PLAN FOR SALVATION or THE SECRET TEMPLE CEREMONIES or something important. Well you can infer whatever you want but until you provide me scripture that says, these books contains something that we need today for salvation you have no point, and if you are going to use Gods word, you should really stop inferring your personal or mormon inflections

Are you listening to yourself? Yes, that's what I said - the Son of God in not G-d, what do you not understand. They CANNOT be used interchangeably - THAT'S MY POINT! The verse you quoted said G-d - WHICH IS NOT THE SAME PERSON AS THE SON OF GOD - it needed to be changed.

Even though the Savior is the Lord G-d, he is not G-d the Father.

So inspired by the HG, Josep Smith screwed up? Or the HG screwed up? Or wait...Joseph Smith screwed up his story? What happned? If you would please show me a correction in the bible of that magnitude? Please do so and if you can't I rest my case as to which is the TRUE WORD OF GOD

No, the people printing the book made the mistake. But, good thing there were modern prophets and apostles to catch it.

Haaaaahahaaa. It never stops. Do you have official hand-scribed documentation of this or are you just telling me what someon told you? Weren't the tablets taken away or something, so how would you know whether it was a printing error or vice versa?

I do feel like I'm talking to a wall sometimes...

You INTERPRET John to mean that. When did you hear John say that the 'Trinity' is what he meant? Did he visit you or something?

Now, I have the benefit of the Lord telling me how it is through his prophets, and I know them to be so by the power of the HG - which reveals TRUTH.

DITTO

Okay lets drop interpretations? Will you tell me what it says? Didn't think so

DITTO, without the prophets my God loves me enough shoot straight with me, doesn't need a middle man

Why do I need to do the work for you? Obviously you missed the whole thing the first time(s) you read it. You just need to re-read the whole thing, you have alot of work/studying to do.

I think I can almost conclude that I KNOW you don't have scriptures now

Nooo...

The prophets and apostles rely on revelation, the Lord, the HG, not upon their own reasonings and interpretaions.

See, there were those who were faithful to the Gospel, while others corrupted, changed, and mocked it. The difference was that there were those who had revelation from the Lord to keep the Gospel truth on Earth - during the Apostasy, though, that was not possible. Man had only their own reasonings and interpretations to rely on - that is not the case today (see modern revelation, prophets and apostles).

YESSSS. The men who wrote the bible relied on revelation, the Lord and the HG, prove otherwise. So you are saying some of the authors of the book of the bible were corrupted, changed or mocked the word?

FOUL! FOUL! - I cry FOUL!

You see, silly, you CANNOT change addition to multiplication just to suit your needs!

The scripture says the Father, AND the Son, AND the HG - that my friend is ADDITION. Sorry.

I'd call foul too, if it proved me wrong. Actually no I wouldn't but I guess you would. When you multiply 3 things is it any different than what you have just said, AxBxC? Does the scripture specify what math principle to use to describe him? Oh wait there goes that inference again.........I caught you......stop that!!

Isn't that what we are supposed to do? Know G-d? I thought I already said that...

Aren't we commanded to be like him?? Aren't we supposed to have what he has?? Aren't we supposed to be joint heirs??

Where you err, is that yes we are commanded to STRIVE to be like him which we will never be. You change the strive to CAN BE like him..........WRONG

You dissappoint me.

Bugs walk on water because they are not heavy enough to break the Hydrogen bonds formed by the water molecules.

Now, don't you think the Savior knows Chemistry? Wouldn't all he have to do is make those bonds stronger? Or perhaps himself lighter? How did he ascend to Heaven? Maybe by using the same Physics that make planes or birds fly...?

If you don't answer anything else, answer this question.

Has the heavenly father commited the ultimate act of love for you? If yes, what has he done to profess this ultimate love he has for you personally.

[noahnoah]

Noanoah said:

QUOTE 

So the proof lies in something subjective, unverifiable

And I ask him:

You must be talking about the Bible, right...? 

The last I heard there was more proof (archaelogical evidene, prophecies fulfilled etc) to support the bible than the BOM. What was the last prophecy fulfilled in the BOM?

[noahnoah]

QUOTE 

Without dodging the question and stating that it is POSSIBLE that we don't know everything, where did God come from and who was the first God?

The doctinre that Joseph Smith (and others) revealed wasn

[bereangirl]

I think that there are lots of confused people here. First, God is God and there is only one. He is God He was God He will be God. There can't be gods, even if people (like the FARMS people) say that the old Jews believed in many gods. We know from Jesus and the New Testament that there is one GOD. Since Jesus is also God and so is the Holy Spirit, then we know that God has three persons. He can appear to us as the Son, like he did 2000 years ago. He can be the Holy Spirit. And He is the Holy Ghost. He can and is all three at once. There is only one God even though He acts in three different ways.

Also you can have God getting to be more God. He just IS. He can get any better or else He wouldn't already be God. The Bible says there is only one God, and the Bible is the WORD OF GOD! The Bible also says that Jesus is God. So it is a QED thing, proven to be true!

[bereangirl]

Oh and I forgot to say that the title of this "Can I become greater than Heavenly Father" is real easy to answer.

OF COURSE NOT. YOU ARE A PERSON AND HE IS GOD.

[sidewinder]

Berean,

I hate to bring such uncomforting news to you give your er, tender young age ;) and all. But here it goes anyway: there is no such thing as God. Therefore, you are already greater than God the Father in the same way you are greater than Luke Skywalker and Flash Gordon. You've been lied to. Your ministers have lied to you. The Bible has lied to you. And Jesus himself has lied to you. Since there is no God, the Bible can't possibly be true now can it? And since Jesus spoke of his Father in Heaven, and there is no such thing, he is a false Jesus--which is worse than a false prophet by the way. If there were a hell, a false Jesus would go to a lower level than a false prophet. Anyway, think about it. You're still young. A good first step now that you've been told the TRUTH, would be to throw away your Bible. Let me know when you've done so. We may then rejoice together.

[Tchild2]

I think that there are lots of confused people here. First, God is God and there is only one. He is God He was God He will be God. There can't be gods, even if people (like the FARMS people) say that the old Jews believed in many gods. We know from Jesus and the New Testament that there is one GOD. Since Jesus is also God and so is the Holy Spirit, then we know that God has three persons. He can appear to us as the Son, like he did 2000 years ago. He can be the Holy Spirit. And He is the Holy Ghost. He can and is all three at once. There is only one God even though He acts in three different ways.

Bereangirl - you are probably super sweet to hang with at the mall or at a Brittney Spears concert, but every thread I read of yours reminds me of one of those fun dolls with the pull string. You pull the string and get to hear the same pre-programmed message over and over again.

You type the word GOD so easily on a keyboard, but what do you know of God outside of a BIBLE?

[Gordon]

...it is more illogical and unchristian to search another book for the gospel other than the bible.

[Gordon]

Since Jesus is also God and so is the Holy Spirit, then we know that God has three persons. He can appear to us as the Son, like he did 2000 years ago. He can be the Holy Spirit. And He is the Holy Ghost.

G-d has 3 persons!? Wow! Now, you can actually explain this, right? And I would like you to use verses from the Bible to do so - ones that actually cover this, OK?

He can and is all three at once.

Now why did the Savior tell us he would send the Comforter - HG - in his place??

He acts in three different ways.

Why the split personality? Why all the charades? Why doesn't he just come out and say so, instead of 'acting' out these different characters?

The Bible says there is only one God, and the Bible is the WORD OF GOD!

Tell me now, how do you know that the Bible (books) are real? How do you know that those books actually came from the Lord? Because is says so...!?

Well, I'd like to tell you a little secret - I'm really a frog. That's right! I'm a frog! I can speak, read, type, and have conversations!

Now, listen carefully...

I want you to go and get as much of your parents money, and send it to me. This is true, for I say it! Now, as I have written...go now and do!

[noahnoah]

You type the word GOD so easily on a keyboard, but what do you know of God outside of a BIBLE?

She doesnt need to know because there is NONE outside of the bible

[noahnoah]

Its obvious we aren't getting anywhere with any of this but maybe this last question will help you see clearly

QUOTE 

Has the heavenly father commited the ultimate act of love for you?

Yes.

QUOTE 

...what  has he done to profess this ultimate love?

He has given me the knowledge of the Restored Gospel by the power of the HG

Well if you think that giving someone something is really the greatest act of love, you are either lying to yourself or I just really feel sorry for you. Especially when the bible itself tells us in the book of John 15:13 that....

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

With that said, mormons have 1 really big problem.

As I've seen you can rationalize and explain anything even if it is untrue, but here you only have two choices, IF you are a mormon

1. The Heavenly Father has NOT COMMITED the ultimate act of love for you, Jesus did. (Who wants to have anything to do with a God that will not show them the ULTIMATE act of love?)

2. The only othe option is Jesus is GOD, one in the same. (As a trinitarian, we have the comfort and solace of knowing that OUR GOD HAS committed the ultimate act of love for us, does it hurt at all to not have he same comfort? I guess its pretty comforting to know that the GOD you worship has sent someone in his place to pay the penalty and did not have the courage to do it himself)

God Bless

[Gordon]

Well if you think that giving someone something is really the greatest act of love, you are either lying to yourself or I just really feel sorry for you. Especially when the bible itself tells us in the book of John 15:13 that....

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Obviously, there has been a mis-understanding.

You see, to me, you never asked what Heavenly Father did as his ultimate act of love.

You asked if he had - I said yes. Then, you asked how he professed this act. Well, to profess, means to tell, admit, show, etc. To me, that meant that you wanted to know how he made his act known to us (such as by the Bible, prophets, revelation, etc.). So, I responded accordingly, by telling you how he has made it known to ME.

Now, to answer your question of what was his altimate act, I say this: to sacrafice his Only Begotten for all of us.

To watch your son go through all that he went through, and require him to do what he did - THAT is the ultimate act. For, you see, without that, none of us could return to him.

You say the ultimate act is to lay down your life for your friend, well, what would be harder for you: to sacrafice yourself, or your son?

I can assure you, that I would sacrafice myself so fast, if it would save my son from any pain.

And remember also, that the Lord asked if there could be any other way, for him to be allowed to do it. But, the Father, knowing there was no other, had to tell his Son that he did indeed have to do it. Could you do that?

[noahnoah]

noahnoah:

Has the heavenly father commited the ultimate act of love for you?

Gordon:

Yes.

noahnoah:

...what  has he done to profess this ultimate love?

Gordon:

He has given me the knowledge of the Restored Gospel by the power of the HG

Gordon:

You see, to me, you never asked what Heavenly Father did as his ultimate act of love.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? I never asked what he did? You did throw in the 'to me' but it clearly shows your true answer and your adjusted answer after you have realized your error. The truth is known.

To me, that meant that you wanted to know how he made his act known to us (such as by the Bible, prophets, revelation, etc.). So, I responded accordingly, by telling you how he has made it known to ME.

Even in your 2nd response you stick to your original answer and then answer the same question again with a different answer??? So if the knowledge of the Restored Gospel IS how he has made it known to you, why do you provide a second answer about sending his son? Which one is it? Are you lying about one or the other, make a mistake or just covering up your responses that will result in an unfavorable situation for you and adjusting where you are wrong with a different story?

Now, to answer your question of what was his altimate act, I say this: to sacrafice his Only Begotten for all of us.

Is that Gordon's opinion or does it say that somewhere scripturally?

To watch your son go through all that he went through, and require him to do what he did - THAT is the ultimate act. For, you see, without that, none of us could return to him.

The ultimate act? Again says who?

You act as if God was surprised by what happened to Jesus during his time on the earth? Watch your son go through all that he went through??? Hmmm, its not like us watching a kid grow up not knowing what hand life is going to deal them. God sent him for a purpose and God knew before he came what would happen.

You say the ultimate act is to lay down your life for your friend, well, what would be harder for you: to sacrafice yourself, or your son?

Actually the book of John says it, I just follow the scriptures, so please dont make it sound as if we are debating each others opinions. Its gordons opinion vs the bible.

So giving is the ultimate act of love? Not dying for someone? Granted both are sacrifices but one is the ULTIMATE. Just the sound of those two options make it really clear to see which is the ULTIMATE sacrifice. It would be hard to sacrifice your son, I'm not refuting that. What I'm saying is that, whenever a situation similar to this occurs, this question arises: "was that "thing" that was given away REALLY VALUABLE to the one who have gave it away"?. For example:

(two possible solutions: I send myself or I send my wife because I am superior)

If it were me and my wife, and one of us could save 100 children from some catastrophic event, but one of us had to give our lives to do so.

It would be hard to send my wife to die for the sake of the 100 children, no doubt. Say I did send my wife and she was sacrificed for the greater good. Does that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the love I have for the children? 100%? Are there not alot of questions still that are unanswered as to whether my decision to send my wife was really a sacrifice or a selfish motive? Maybe I sent her because I didn't want to die. Maybe I sent her because I really didn't like her to begin with. Love cannot be measured by how "HARD" something is because "HARD" differs from one person to the next. With the example I gave, it could be hard or it may just seem hard? The only way too 100% prove your love for the kids would be for me to die for them. Not send someone, not let someone else do someting, but for ME to step up to the plate and DIE FOR THE CAUSE. If we are speaking of the ultimate act of love, would I not want to spare my wife's life too?

Another interesting problem (if you believe in 3 seperate Gods) is that given The Eternal Fathers superiority or rank in the godhead. The plan of salvation for man was not Jesus's plan but The Eternal Fathers. So he REALLY would be squeaking out or "having someone do his dirty worik" if he sent Jesus to die for him in his place. (since it was his PLAN)

I can assure you, that I would sacrafice myself so fast, if it would save my son from any pain.

Because you love your son more than yourself. I know God (Eternal Father) would do the same, but you seem to think differently and I am sorrowed by that thought.

To watch your son go through all that he went through, and require him to do what he did - THAT is the ultimate act. For, you see, without that, none of us could return to him.

So is it fair to say Jesus has done more for you than The Eternal Father? Without Jesus none of us could return to him? If there are 3 different people/gods one of them is not performing up to par.

Do you still believe that giving up something is the greatest act of love, even though there is no way to tell the value of that which you give up? Do you believe the verse in John is a lie, wrong, misinterpreted or what? I'd like for you to read it and tell me what it says?

God Bless

[Gordon]

ARE YOU SERIOUS?