bluebell Posted April 17, 2015 Author Posted April 17, 2015 1) Angels were called sons of God in Job, not men (Job 1:6; 2:1).Not wanting to derail it any further I will try and bring it back with this:Speaking about Jesus:John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."Colossians 1:6 "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." Men are called the sons of God (as well as the offspring of God as well). And yes, LDS absolutely believe that Christ created all things.
bluebell Posted April 17, 2015 Author Posted April 17, 2015 Hi JLHPROFOK lets start with God the Father is a Spirit. This is stated in the Bible Jn.4:24, Lk. 24:39 and BOM Alma 18:26-28, 22:8-11--------------Mormon doctrine contradicts this as states, God the Father has flesh and bones. As has already been said, Lamoni had no concept of God other than the idea of a great spirit, so Ammon had to start with the concept of God Lamoni was familiar with. In a previous verse it says- Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit.
jackson20 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I gave you the explanation.I showed you why there was no conflict between Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.You are unable to see the possibility of a God other than the one you have already come to believe in (admittedly, I am in the same boat).Simply put, our context for reading scripture is colored by the religion we belong to. Neither of us is likely to be able to see God the way the other does, because that's not what we read in scripture. Yes i would have to stick only to proof from the Bible....as I don't trust sources outside of it. It's pretty obvious that no biblical scripture indicates that God is flesh and bones. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen... (Romans 1:19-20) Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17) ...who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:15-16) By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. (Hebrews 11:27) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18) Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. (John 6:46)
jackson20 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 JLHPROF, on 17 Apr 2015 - 3:50 PM, said:I gave you the explanation.I showed you why there was no conflict between Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.You are unable to see the possibility of a God other than the one you have already come to believe in (admittedly, I am in the same boat).Simply put, our context for reading scripture is colored by the religion we belong to. Neither of us is likely to be able to see God the way the other does, because that's not what we read in scripture. As far as Jesus is concerned.It is true that Jesus, who is God the Son, came to earth in a human body. However, the Bible makes it clear that Jesus took on the form of a human, but did not exist as such from eternity: ...Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5- Therefore, the Bible claims that Jesus existed in the “form of God” (i.e., a Spirit), but took on the form of a human male in order to come to earth and commune with His people
JLHPROF Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Yes i would have to stick only to proof from the Bible....as I don't trust sources outside of it. It's pretty obvious that no biblical scripture indicates that God is flesh and bones. As far as Jesus is concerned. Yeah, I'm not interested in debating these old chestnuts again. There have been dozens of threads on this board about them (one of the most recent hit well over a hundred pages) and nobody was convinced any different than before it started.They are a huge waste of time. I am happy to discuss the doctrines of Mormonism, but I have no interest in debating with non-Mormon religions about who is right. Mormonism requires more than the Bible. Evangelicals won't accept anything other than the Bible. Therefore nobody can convince anyone of anything. I have no doubt that Mormonism is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. That's good enough for me.
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I am happy to discuss the doctrines of Mormonism, but I have no interest in debating with non-Mormon religions about who is right. Mormonism requires more than the Bible. Evangelicals won't accept anything other than the Bible. Therefore nobody can convince anyone of anything. I have no doubt that Mormonism is the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. That's good enough for me. Well.. that is an interesting response. Perhaps Christians don't want to use any other material other than the Bible for good reason....the other material keeps changing and changing..... Joseph Smith couldn't seem to get anything straight.....and certainly has been proved to be a false prophet. Along with Monotheism, that is, the belief in one God, Joseph Smith also started out teaching that God is spirit. And, just as he "changed" his doctrine of one God to many Gods, Smith, changed his teaching that God is spirit to the Father has a body of flesh and bones (cf. D&C, 130:22). But, to be sure, Smith did teach, early on, that God is spirit.
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Just to be clear JLHPROF, one of the reasons that so many Christians only want to use the Bible and no other source-----there are to many deletions and additions and changes and more changes. Can anyone imagine deleting 68 pages and over 20,000 words from doctrine. Doctrine and Covenants:The original 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants contained a section called: Lectures on Faith. This section had about 68 pages and more than 20, 000 words. However, this section is now missing from the current edition ofDoctrines and Covenants. The entire Lectures on Faith have subsequently been removed from both the RLDS and LDS Doctrine and Covenants. The reason why it was removed is evident:There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things. . . . They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man (Lecture 5, 52-53; emphasis added)"The Father being a personage of spirit," is not what modern LDS teaches. Compare this to what the later sections of the current Doctrine of Covenants teach:The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit (130:22; given April 1843; emphasis added)
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 The ever changing God of Joseph Smith. The last paragraph is important. Modalism Joseph Smith did not understand the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the teachings of Modalism. Modalism was the "second century heresy" that made the assertion that God exist as one person that reveals himself in different modes, manifestations or dimensions, but God is not three distinct Persons(Trinity). In other words, in Oneness(Modalsim) thinking, since God is one, but in the Bible the Father is called God, Jesus is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God, therefore Jesus is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The one person (Jesus) has two natures, divine being the Father and human being the Son. Thus, in this doctrine, Jesus acts sometimes as the Son (human) and sometimes as the Father (God) and yet other times the Holy Spirit. So, what does Modalism have to do with Joseph Smith? Answer: the Book of Mormon teaches "both" Trinitarian and Modalism. However, I find that the Book of Mormon is more modalistic than Trinitarian, though. First, observe these decidedly modalistic passages in the Book of Mormon. The introduction of Mosiah chapter 15 reads:How Christ is both the Father and the Son--He shall make intercession and bear the transgression of his people. . . . (emphasis added).Then, starting at verse 1:And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself [the Father] shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son. The Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God. . . . (Mosiah 15:1-5; emphasis added)That Jesus is the Father, is a teaching that is clearly taught in Smith's, Book of Mormon:Behold, I am the he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am the Father and the Son. . . . (Ether 3:14; emphasis added)Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Alma 11:38-39; emphasis added). Amazingly, a mere five verses later the Book of Mormon seems to be teaching to what resembles the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit , which is one Eternal God. . . . (ibid., 11:44; emphasis added).And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (2 Nephi 31:21; emphasis added).And as previously quoted, the "Testimony of the three Witnesses" do NOT agree with the present-day LDS teaching (three separate Gods). Rather, the converse is stated: And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God (Book of Mormon, Introduction). The nature of God is not the only doctrine that Joseph Smith CHANGED in his lifetime. However, it is the doctrine of God that would determine one's salvation. Only the true God is able to save- the God of biblical revelation, a false god does not exist. Jesus was very concerned as to the different beliefs of Him, which would deceive mankind. Jesus taught that having accurate knowledge of Him was a prerequisite to salvation:
JLHPROF Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Well.. that is an interesting response. Perhaps Christians don't want to use any other material other than the Bible for good reason....the other material keeps changing and changing..... Joseph Smith couldn't seem to get anything straight.....and certainly has been proved to be a false prophet. Just to be clear JLHPROF, one of the reasons that so many Christians only want to use the Bible and no other source-----there are to many deletions and additions and changes and more changes. Can anyone imagine deleting 68 pages and over 20,000 words from doctrine. The nature of God is not the only doctrine that Joseph Smith CHANGED in his lifetime. However, it is the doctrine of God that would determine one's salvation. Only the true God is able to save- the God of biblical revelation, a false god does not exist. Jesus was very concerned as to the different beliefs of Him, which would deceive mankind. Jesus taught that having accurate knowledge of Him was a prerequisite to salvation: And here comes the usual barrage of claims, as if we haven't all heard them 100 times and responded to them 101.I don't think anyone is interested in debating these again. You can look at the board history and read those. Evangelicals always think they are telling us something we've never heard or considered. We've heard this. We've considered this. We are still Mormon.
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 And here comes the usual barrage of claims, as if we haven't all heard them 100 times and responded to them 101.I don't think anyone is interested in debating these again. You can look at the board history and read those. Evangelicals always think they are telling us something we've never heard or considered. We've heard this. We've considered this. We are still Mormon.No JLHPROF...they are not claims---- they are facts which you will not research..... Tell me why would 68 pages, 20,000 words go missing(be deleted) from the original 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants? If your prophet JS was so in touch with God why all the changes? Why all the different versions of visions? God is not an author of confusion....Joseph Smith is? Try responding with answers that line up with the Bible and are consistent and maybe the 102 response will make sense.
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 According to Mormons, God has a body of flesh and bones. Does the Bible support this? "God the Father has a body of flesh and bones" - Joseph Smith, D&C 130: 22 Update: I am the one amazed because of those limiting God to a human appearance as if God needed to have muscle tone and bone mass. Elements that clearly need to subsist on earthly elements such as water, food and oxygen. The Bible does not support this. Let's examen a few things: What is the “finger of God” in... show more Update 2: Did Moses see God literally? No. John 1:18 - “No man hath seen God at any time, [...]” John 6:46 - “Not that any man hath seen the Father, [...]” Is their a contradiction? No. Because what Moses, Abraham and others saw was actually the Angel of God appearing in God's stead. Acts. 7:37, 38, 53 - “This... show more Update 3: Those resurrected into heavens obtain a spiritual body? Yes. 1Cor. 15:44 - “it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body; Is Jesus a spirit? Yes. 1Cor. 15:45 - “The last Adam [Jesus] was made a quickening [life-giving] spirit.” The... show more
JLHPROF Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 No JLHPROF...they are not claims---- they are facts which you will not research..... Tell me why would 68 pages, 20,000 words go missing(be deleted) from the original 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants? If your prophet JS was so in touch with God why all the changes? Why all the different versions of visions? God is not an author of confusion....Joseph Smith is? Try responding with answers that line up with the Bible and are consistent and maybe the 102 response will make sense. What do you mean "will not research"?I knew the Lectures on Faith were in and then removed from the D&C probably long before you ever heard of them. I've read them more times than you can possibly realize and certainly more than you. I've studied them in study groups. I've compared and contrasted them to the further light and knowledge revealed to Joseph later on. The lectures on faith were written by Sidney Rigdon academically and are not revelatory in nature (although I believe Lecture 6 to be more inspired).Prior to the completion of the Kirtland Temple the early Church had a lot of false protestant traditions that bled into their beliefs. It took a while for them to be corrected. The LoF were left in the canon as historical record with value to study. Joseph Smith authored no confusion. He restored knowledge of the most perfect pattern of the plan of salvation and exaltation to the earth that was lost from the days of the Savior. When properly understood there is not a single flaw, error, or contradiction. He made changes as more and more of the gospel was revealed. The Joseph Smith of 1833 had less understanding and revelation than the Joseph Smith of 1843. Is it any wonder his teachings developed too? Only the closed canon thinking would expect perfect gospel from the day the Church was founded. Typical evangelical, thinking Mormons don't know their own religion.
JLHPROF Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) According to Mormons, God has a body of flesh and bones. Does the Bible support this? Genesis 32 24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Also: Acts 7:56 -And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Edited April 18, 2015 by JLHPROF
Bobbieaware Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) The ever changing God of Joseph Smith. The last paragraph is important.Modalism Joseph Smith did not understand the difference between the doctrine of the Trinity and the teachings of Modalism. Modalism was the "second century heresy" that made the assertion that God exist as one person that reveals himself in different modes, manifestations or dimensions, but God is not three distinct Persons(Trinity). In other words, in Oneness(Modalsim) thinking, since God is one, but in the Bible the Father is called God, Jesus is called God, and the Holy Spirit is called God, therefore Jesus is the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. The one person (Jesus) has two natures, divine being the Father and human being the Son. Thus, in this doctrine, Jesus acts sometimes as the Son (human) and sometimes as the Father (God) and yet other times the Holy Spirit. So, what does Modalism have to do with Joseph Smith? Answer: the Book of Mormon teaches "both" Trinitarian and Modalism. However, I find that the Book of Mormon is more modalistic than Trinitarian, though. First, observe these decidedly modalistic passages in the Book of Mormon. The introduction of Mosiah chapter 15 reads:How Christ is both the Father and the Son--He shall make intercession and bear the transgression of his people. . . . (emphasis added).Then, starting at verse 1:And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself [the Father] shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son. The Father because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God. . . . (Mosiah 15:1-5; emphasis added)That Jesus is the Father, is a teaching that is clearly taught in Smith's, Book of Mormon:Behold, I am the he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am the Father and the Son. . . . (Ether 3:14; emphasis added)Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last (Alma 11:38-39; emphasis added).Amazingly, a mere five verses later the Book of Mormon seems to be teaching to what resembles the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity:but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit , which is one Eternal God. . . . (ibid., 11:44; emphasis added).And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen" (2 Nephi 31:21; emphasis added).And as previously quoted, the "Testimony of the three Witnesses" do NOT agree with the present-day LDS teaching (three separate Gods). Rather, the converse is stated:And honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God (Book of Mormon, Introduction). The nature of God is not the only doctrine that Joseph Smith CHANGED in his lifetime. However, it is the doctrine of God that would determine one's salvation. Only the true God is able to save- the God of biblical revelation, a false god does not exist. Jesus was very concerned as to the different beliefs of Him, which would deceive mankind. Jesus taught that having accurate knowledge of Him was a prerequisite to salvation:The Post-resurrection ministry of Jesus Christ among the Nephites, as recorder in 3 Nephi of the Book of Mormon, does not at all support a Modalist construct for the Book of Mormon. I suggest you read the Book of 3 Nephi, beginning at chapter 11, and then report back and provide any verses you find you believe are Modalist in nature. I believe you will be hard-pressed to find even single one.Also, you don't seem to understand that just because in your mind you have come to surmize some verses of the Book of Mormon allude to a supposed Modalist notion of the Godhead, that doesn't mean the verses in question do in reality speak of a modal Godhead, not any more than the Bible verses Modalist Christianns dredge up to "prove" their belief in a modal Godhead are in fact Modalist.in nature. Do I not speak the truth when I say you are willing to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its "Modalist Sounding" verses, but in your prejudice against the LDS religion you won't give the Book of Mormon equal benefit of the doubt?If I were so disposed, I could explain much that might very well cause you to second guess your presumptuousness when in comes to the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church, but the know-it-all spirit that pervades your posts gives me pause to even consider wanting to try. It's obvious you are an intelligent individual, but having an intelligent mind doesn't necessarily equate to possessing the spirit of revelation. And I wii be forward in saying I don't much care to interact with folks who use their intellectual gifts like club. But if I come to discern you're prepared to come down off your high-horse by evincing a spirit of mutual respect and meekness, I might consider opening a dialogue. But if not, since it appears you think you already know more about Mormonism than the Mormons, I'll see no good reason to engage a mind that's closed to the possibility that the Mormons might actually be able to teach you anything of eternal value. And lest you presume to think I may not be the kind of person who walks the walk, it's because I have an open mind that I've been able to learn some wonderfully enlightening things about God and the Bible from non-LDS Christians. And it's oh-so-true that the things I learned from those not of my own faith have proven to be a very great blessing in my personal walk with God. But you must know I was able to learn from my non-LDS friends because I've tried hard to keep my mind and heart genuinely open to the possibility that non-LDS Christians --and Jews -- are blessed by a perfectly loving God to know and comprehend valuable spiritual truths. But if you aren't prepared to show similar deference to me as a Latter-day Saint, I'll not engage. Edited April 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Also: Acts 7:56 -And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Love when you quote allegorical verses. Hmmm here's a good one Psalm 91:4 Does this mean God has wings and feathers? Stop the nonsense. Jesus said himself that no one has seen the Father John 6:46, many verses have been posted about the invisible Father.....After all the Father is a Spirit and not of flesh and bones. The Bible is crystal clear on that front... I'll take the words of Jesus over the words of a failed prophet JS I mean really JS couldn't get is first vision straight.....and his fiasco over the BOA. Still no plausible explanation over that debacle. Darn why did pieces of those Egyption funneral tests have to turn up. We wouldn't have had to come up with all those bogus possibilities that are proven to be utter nonsense. Darn why did the kinderhook plates end up being a fraud. And on and on and on. JS the founder of mormonism was such a con artist. Again I will choose the Biblical Jesus that said no one has seen the father and the many other verses that indicate that non one has seen the father. NOT JS and his every changing story
JAHS Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Very well stated JLHPROFI definitely agree with most of what you state.However I agree with HOLY CATHOLICS statement "The Book of Mormon never agrees with Mormonism when it abandon's the Evangelic though". I think every LDS and non-LDS should have a good understanding of the differences. Here is a site that is easy to read and is in table form. The differences are NOT minor and are extremely significant. Google The Book of Mormon contradicts ITSELF and the Bible!www.bible.ca/mor-contradictions. Every one of the claims on the link you provided have been soundly refuted over and over again. Let me give just a few examples:: Bible says:Church began in 33 AD Mt 16:18 Acts 2 Book of Mormon says:church began in 147BC, Mosiah 18:17 Both of them are right.The church established for the Eastern part of the world began in 33ADA Church established for those living in the western hemisphere began in 147 BC Bible says:"disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" 40AD, Acts 11:26 Book of Mormon says:Alma 46:13-16 supposedly written in 73BC refers to Nephites as Christians. Again both are correct. Same logic as the previous claim. The Nephites just learned about Christ before the people in the eastern part of the world. Another one where the author of these contradictions doesn't understand LDS doctrine. Book of Mormon says ther is forgiveness for murderB. of M.- 3 Nephi 30:2Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. D&C says no forgiveness for murderD. & C. - Section 42:18And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. But notice that the D&C is speaking about members of the church who have already taken upon them the name of christ and promise to live his gospel. The Book of Mormon scriptures is talking abot the Gentiles who dont know Christ and are full of sin. For them forgiveness is possible for murder because they have not learned of Christ nor made such a promise.
JLHPROF Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Love when you quote allegorical verses. Hmmm here's a good one Psalm 91:4 Does this mean God has wings and feathers? Stop the nonsense. Jesus said himself that no one has seen the Father John 6:46, many verses have been posted about the invisible Father.....After all the Father is a Spirit and not of flesh and bones. The Bible is crystal clear on that front... I'll take the words of Jesus over the words of a failed prophet JS I mean really JS couldn't get is first vision straight.....and his fiasco over the BOA. Still no plausible explanation over that debacle. Darn why did pieces of those Egyption funneral tests have to turn up. We wouldn't have had to come up with all those bogus possibilities that are proven to be utter nonsense. Darn why did the kinderhook plates end up being a fraud. And on and on and on. JS the founder of mormonism was such a con artist. Again I will choose the Biblical Jesus that said no one has seen the father and the many other verses that indicate that non one has seen the father. NOT JS and his every changing story And with that litany of rehashed argument I am done with this thread.
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 The Post-resurrection ministry of Jesus Christ among the Nephites, as recorder in 3 Nephi of the Book of Mormon, does not at all support a Modalist construct for the Book of Mormon. I suggest you read the Book of 3 Nephi, beginning at chapter 11, and then report back and provide any verses you find you believe are Modalist in nature. I believe you will be hard-pressed to find even single one.Also, you don't seem to understand that just because in your mind you have come to surmize some verses of the Book of Mormon allude to a supposed Modalist notion of the Godhead, that doesn't mean the verses in question do in reality speak of a modal Godhead, not any more than the Bible verses Modalist Christianns dredge up to "prove" their belief in a modal Godhead are in fact Modalist.in nature. Do I not speak the truth when I say you are willing to give the Bible the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its "Modalist Sounding" verses, but in your prejudice against the LDS religion you won't give the Book of Mormon equal benefit of the doubt?If I were so disposed, I could explain much that might very well cause you to second guess your presumptuousness when in comes to the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church, but the know-it-all spirit that pervades your posts gives me pause to even consider wanting to try.It's obvious you are an intelligent individual, but having an intelligent mind doesn't necessarily equate to possessing the spirit of revelation. And I wii be forward in saying I don't much care to interact with folks who use their intellectual gifts like club. But if I come to discern you're prepared to come down off your high-horse by evincing a spirit of mutual respect and meekness, I might consider opening a dialogue. But if not, since it appears you think you already know more about Mormonism than the Mormons, I'll see no good reason to engage a mind that's closed to the possibility that the Mormons might actually be able to teach you anything of eternal value. And lest you presume to think I may not be the kind of person who walks the walk, it's because I have an open mind that I've been able to learn some wonderfully enlightening things about God and the Bible from non-LDS Christians. And it's oh-so-true that the things I learned from those not of my own faith have proven to be a very great blessing in my personal walk with God. But you must know I was able to learn from my non-LDS friends because I've tried hard to keep my mind and heart genuinely open to the possibility that non-LDS Christians --and Jews -- are blessed by a perfectly loving God to know and comprehend valuable spiritual truths. But if you aren't prepared to show similar deference to me as a Latter-day Saint, I'll not engage.Madame Bobbie, my apologies if you think I am using a club. That is not my intention. Truth is my intention. I am learning an enormous amount of information by reading and responding to comments. However I am a firm believer that the Bible is the source of Truth,. I can not believe in outside sources, especially knowing the history of JS. I must use my common sense. I also am very opposed to learn that huge amounts of information have gone missing ie deleted from the D and C. On top of all this there is not a shread of archeological evidence supporting the BOM. And on top of that when people use allegorical verses ( ie face to face) in the Bible to support that God the Father has been seen,,yet numerous and i mean numerous verses say God the Father has never been seen...I find it somewhat dishonest......especially when Jesus makes the claim himself.that no one has seen the Father. Numerous scholars and archaeologists have unanimously concluded that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. For example: "The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dee F. Green, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book." ("Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," Smithsonian Institution, Spring 1986)"With all of these great efforts, it cannot be established factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book-of-Mormon geographical place. And the hemisphere has been pretty well checked out by competent people. Thousands of sites have been excavated." (Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers, p. 4, 1975)"The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has even shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." (Michael Coe, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 42, 46)
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Every one of the claims on the link you provided have been soundly refuted over and over again. Let me give just a few examples:: Bible says:Church began in 33 AD Mt 16:18 Acts 2 Book of Mormon says:church began in 147BC, Mosiah 18:17 Both of them are right.The church established for the Eastern part of the world began in 33ADA Church established for those living in the western hemisphere began in 147 BC Bible says:"disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" 40AD, Acts 11:26 Book of Mormon says:Alma 46:13-16 supposedly written in 73BC refers to Nephites as Christians. Again both are correct. Same logic as the previous claim. The Nephites just learned about Christ before the people in the eastern part of the world. Another one where the author of these contradictions doesn't understand LDS doctrine. Book of Mormon says ther is forgiveness for murderB. of M.- 3 Nephi 30:2Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel. D&C says no forgiveness for murderD. & C. - Section 42:18And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. But notice that the D&C is speaking about members of the church who have already taken upon them the name of christ and promise to live his gospel. The Book of Mormon scriptures is talking abot the Gentiles who dont know Christ and are full of sin. For them forgiveness is possible for murder because they have not learned of Christ nor made such a promise. JAHS I disagree with you. Show me that the BOM has archaeological evidence...it's been unanimously concluded there is nothing viable. There should be heaps of archeological evidence given the events that took place. There certainly is in other much much older situations. Yet not a shread. Show me the BOM hasn't big sections that have been plagerized. I appreciate the effort but please don't expect me to agree with the BOM to support your claims. I use the Bible and only the Bible as my standard of Truth. Numerous scholars and archaeologists have unanimously concluded that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. For example: "The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dee F. Green, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book." ("Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," Smithsonian Institution, Spring 1986)"With all of these great efforts, it cannot be established factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book-of-Mormon geographical place. And the hemisphere has been pretty well checked out by competent people. Thousands of sites have been excavated." (Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers, p. 4, 1975)"The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has even shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." (Michael Coe, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 42, 46)
JAHS Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 JAHS I disagree with you. Show me that the BOM has archaeological evidence...it's been unanimously concluded there is nothing viable. There should be heaps of archeological evidence given the events that took place. There certainly is in other much much older situations. Yet not a shread. Show me the BOM hasn't big sections that have been plagerized. I appreciate the effort but please don't expect me to agree with the BOM to support your claims. I use the Bible and only the Bible as my standard of Truth. Numerous scholars and archaeologists have unanimously concluded that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon. For example: "The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dee F. Green, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book." ("Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon," Smithsonian Institution, Spring 1986)"With all of these great efforts, it cannot be established factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book-of-Mormon geographical place. And the hemisphere has been pretty well checked out by competent people. Thousands of sites have been excavated." (Thomas Stuart Ferguson, Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers, p. 4, 1975)"The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has even shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere." (Michael Coe, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, pp. 42, 46)Nothing on that initial link you provided which I was responding to said anything about archeology.
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Nothing on that initial link you provided which I was responding to said anything about archeology.JAHS , that was not the point I was making.....sorry I thought I was being clear that only the Bible is my source of truth.
jackson20 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 And with that litany of rehashed argument I am done with this thread. JLHPROF sorry to see you go. Please take a look at this sight. It will help you understand why I just can't accept JS as a true prophet of God. Also has some great Mormon testamonies. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the plagiarism sited. The site is extremely well laid out... Mormonism Disproved - Plagiarismwww.mormonismdisproved.org/plagiarism.html
Darren10 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I don't know if this was already mentioned but this dawned on me last night while thinking of your post, bluebell. Recently I've been intrigued by the title "Son of Man". It is found in both traditional and restorative scripture but it is the latter only, so far ad I know, which places this title into perspective. A Guide to the Scriptures explicitly states that Son of Man was the name of jesus Christ. The full title of Son of Man would be Son of Man of Holiness. Man of Holiness was the title of the Father. Right there, I think, declares affirmitively that Jesus Christ was the Son of God even premortally; carrying with Him a specific title none other had. This, to me declares Him as YHWH being the Son of God. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/son-of-man?lang=engMises 6:57 declares Son of Man as Jesus Christ, the "Only Begotten" of the Father and this title was used "in the language of Adam". https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/6?lang=eng
Darren10 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Just to be clear JLHPROF, one of the reasons that so many Christians only want to use the Bible and no other source-----there are to many deletions and additions and changes and more changes. Can anyone imagine deleting 68 pages and over 20,000 words from doctrine. Doctrine and Covenants:The original 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants contained a section called: Lectures on Faith. This section had about 68 pages and more than 20, 000 words. However, this section is now missing from the current edition ofDoctrines and Covenants. The entire Lectures on Faith have subsequently been removed from both the RLDS and LDS Doctrine and Covenants. The reason why it was removed is evident:There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things. . . . They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man (Lecture 5, 52-53; emphasis added)"The Father being a personage of spirit," is not what modern LDS teaches. Compare this to what the later sections of the current Doctrine of Covenants teach:The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit (130:22; given April 1843; emphasis added)This will be my only response to you on this topic or any other topic you brought up as I prefer to stick to the topic of this thread.There is no explicit evidence that Joseph Smith wrote the 1835 D&C passage declaring the Father a personage of Spirit. There is evidence tobsuggest he was involved in editinig it out of later editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. As of 1833 Joseph Smith's version of John 4:24 made it clear that, according to Smith, This biblical passage was not declaring God (the Father) as *only* a spirit. Therefore to conclude that he thought this explicitly in 1835 does not make sense. Smith also made statements which went against the concept of Holy Trinity before the 1835 D&C passage so what you have said is not supported by evidence. Depsite how many times you have read Lectures of Faith and particularly in your "study groups" I highly doubt you have much of a historical background on Joseph Smith's theology. Only that which views him as a false prophet of sorts. If this topic or others are important to you, make a separate post. As I said before, I'd like to stay on topis of this thread. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_First_Vision/The_Father_as_Spirit_vs._Embodied 1
bluebell Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 Well.. that is an interesting response. Perhaps Christians don't want to use any other material other than the Bible for good reason....the other material keeps changing and changing..... Joseph Smith couldn't seem to get anything straight.....and certainly has been proved to be a false prophet. You're beliefs about JS aside (because they don't matter for this discussion), this idea that the bible obviously teaches that God is only a spirit because of that verse in John and that only mormons don't get it isn't correct. I know you're a fan of context so it should be interesting to you to understand how the ancient Jews would have understood that verse. George Christopher Stead, who was a professor at the Cambridge Divinity School (and not a mormon), explained how a statement that God is spirit would have been interpreted within ancient Judaism:"By saying that God is spiritual, we do not mean that he has no body … but rather that he is the source of a mysterious life-giving power and energy that animates the human body, and himself possesses this energy in the fullest measure."
Recommended Posts