LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin

Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Mormon Trinity

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    This is simple Sparko.

    No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus.
    Simply not true. I know a number of ex-Mormons who DID believe as you, but the more they studied, the more they saw what a self-serving egotistic narcissist Smith was.

    It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else. The context here was giving those people in the audience, who had violently attacked him and his family, something to chew on.
    Who WERE "those people in the audience", Seven?

    In retaliation, Joseph did not attack them back in a violent way, but instead entered into a description of "vain" and "foolish" boasting.

    The point of quoting Paul's boasting "in folly" as an introduction to this, was to set up Joseph's own boasting "in folly". The bottom line was that , like Paul, he was telling them that he was going to accomplish what God had sent him to accomplish, no matter what they tried to do to him, because God was with him, albeit "in a still small voice".

    Pretending that Joseph actually had an ego to the extent that Joseph supposedly believed that he was better than Jesus , is an argument that will never be taken seriously. There are too many facts that contradict such an accusation.

    Smith DID have a huge ego. In every sense... Grand PooBah of the Masons, President of the United States, "General" of the Militia prancing about on his horse.... he was a HUGE egotist.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.


    • #92
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Smith DID have a huge ego. In every sense... Grand PooBah of the Masons, President of the United States, "General" of the Militia prancing about on his horse.... he was a HUGE egotist.

      Joseph Smith’s Platform

      Joseph wasted little time in preparing a platform for his campaign. He met with William W. Phelps and dictated to him the headings for a political pamphlet titled General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of the Government of the United States, the foundation document for his presidential platform.

      © Copyright Original Source

      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.


      • #93
        Why was my post to Bill removed?


        • #94
          Wow, I didn't even KNOW this part....

          The most important plank in Joseph’s platform concerned the powers of the president. Joseph wanted to give the chief magistrate “full power to send an army to suppress mobs … [without requiring] the governor of a state to make the demand.”

          © Copyright Original Source

          So, as President*, Smith wanted unfettered control "an army" to intervene in states.... if THAT isn't ego, what is? I can't make this stuff up!

          *praise God, it never came to that!
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.


          • #95
            Originally posted by seven7up View Post
            Why was my post to Bill removed?
            It was moved by me. I explained it in another thread.
            That's what
            - She

            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
            Stephen R. Donaldson


            • #96
              7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?

              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              First, I apologize for implying you "lied", but that's the feeling I get when you just keep repeating the same thing, even after being told that's NOT what we think... That just makes you look like a kool-aid drinking script reader. "if they say X, respond with Y".
              You are implying that Joseph Smith SHOULD have known that the Father had a tangible embodiment from the very beginning. I am simply responding to that. I explained, from the words in our conversation, how I arrived to the conclusion that was what you were implying.

              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              The fact that you do not understand the Trinity does not prove that it was not taught in the early Mormon Church.
              The fact that you think that the Mormon Church taught the Trinity (as taught in Creedal Trinitarianism) proves that you do do not understand the Trinity. The Trinity teaches that God is literally omnipresent. The Trinity teaches that the Father and the Son are the same being/substance. Joseph Smith was not teaching that.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

              The Book of Mormon discusses a physical separation and embodiment (shape, position and form) of members of the Godhead (See: 3 Nephi 11:, 1 Nephi 11:1-11, Ether 3:14-18.)

              In 1830, Joseph explained the meaning of Genesis 1:26 as:

              And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so....And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. (Moses 2:26-27.)

              Again, "in mine own image" to refer to a physical likeness and/or appearance, rather than some kind of a moral or intellectual similarities.

              The explanation of Genesis 5:1-2 reads: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; in the image of his own body, male and female, created he them (Moses 6:8-9; emphasis added).

              - "the different denominations are very much opposed to us.... The Methodists also come, and they rage, for they worship a God without body or parts, and they know that our faith comes in contact with this principle." (Lucy Mack Smith - 1830)

              - "The Prophet Joseph said: 'Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages.' (Joseph Smith 1832-33)

              How about a non-Mormon witness:

              - [The Mormons] contend that the God worshipped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself. (Truman Coe, a Presbyterian minister, who lived in Kirtland for four years (1832–1836).

              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Yes, he couldn't keep his stories straight -- even though he had, allegedly, the "Urum and Thummum", the golden plates, and the power of translation, he couldn't keep it straight.

              I see. So, Joseph Smith was teaching Creedal Trinitarianism before 1835 , except when he wasn't.

              The power of translation was a way to translate what was on the plates into English. You cannot blame the prophets that Joseph Smith was translating from for not having a complete understanding of the Godhead, when the Israelites did not have a complete understanding of the Godhead either.



              • #97
                We simply pay attention to CONTEXT, both textual and historical. Those verses fall under category 4 in this list:
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
                In what sense are they "one"? Oneness of God can be found in scripture in the following ways:

                (1) There is only one perfectly united, mutually indwelling, divine community. We call that community "God" and there is only one such community.
                (2) There is only one God who is our Father or the fount of divinity (ie "the Most High God).
                (3) There is only one divine nature or set of properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for divinity.
                (4) When compared to the false gods of other nations, there was only one Lord/Saviour who could provide redemption/salvation

                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Really? a "community?" - Then you are calling YHWH a liar, because he said there was no God formed before him, nor after him.
                Again, the context you refer to falls under category 4 above. The idol worshipers were "forming" and "creating" statues and worshiping them.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                HE ("I" - note the singular, not "we") is the only God.
                Only in that context, compared to false idols. In another context, God DOES say "us" and "our" and God IS plural (Elohim). And obviously, in another context, we see in the New Testament subject and object distinctions in reference to Jesus and the Father. Are you saying that this Old Testament verse you are referring to should be considered as evidence against the Trinity, because there is no subject/object distinction between Father and Son made here? If you want to misunderstand the context of that statement and try to apply it to other aspects of theology in the Godhead, then you should realize that it would go against your understanding of the Trinity as well.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If Jesus was once a man who "joined the community" then the community existed BEFORE he was God. Yet he specifically says that is not the case.
                Technically, the LDS position is that Jesus was Deity BEFORE entering mortality, and even before the creation of the universe, before time even existed in this universe. However, that is obviously outside the scope of the statement you are referring to, which again, is about people making false idols of wood, stone, metal, etc.
                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Yes I can imagine the Father with Jesus beside him. They are one God revealed as two persons. Your lack of the understanding of the trinity is the problem here.
                That wasn't the question. The question is this. Knowing that Jesus Christ refers to the Father as greater than him and knowing that Jesus refers to the Father as his God would Jesus stand at the right hand of the Father and say "there is no God beside me"? No, the context is entirely different.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If Jesus is YHWH and the creator (Genesis, John) then the Father did nothing. He is no "most high God" - he didn't do squat. He is no God at all.
                I didn't say the Father did nothing. It was a joint effort. They worked together as a team. It is a Plural noun and a singular verb. Also, that is why it says "Let US create..."

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Yet the bible says he is God. It also says Jesus is God. And the Holy Spirit is God. Yet only one God.
                In one sense they are three, and in another sense they are one.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Well if Jesus is YHWH and the Father is not, as the LDS teach, then it must be Jesus' house huh?
                It becomes Jesus' house by inheritance. If Jesus and the Father are the same being, as Trinitarians claim, then Jesus would not have to be "given" authority and Jesus would not have "inherit" anything because it would already be his.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                You realize that Elohim is a plural word. But that plurality doesn't extend to number of beings. It is like Sheep. The "we" used in Genesis is there because of grammar, not because of number of Gods. sheesh.
                Yes. I am fully aware that Elohim is a plural word. The Singular is El or Eloah. It is the -im ("-eem") on the end which makes it plural. It is like water (Hebrew mayim). A body of water has multiple "waters" which are gathered together and those "waters" act as one.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Again, you don't understand the trinity at all. At least try to understand what we believe before burning down a straw man.
                Nobody understands it or can understand it because it is contradictory. The doctrine was created in order to appease both sides of a controversy, and each side of the controversy argues for different sides of a position. So, all you have are straw men.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                TWO persons, one divine nature: God. Also Jesus ... is a different person from the Father, yet shares the same divine nature with him.
                I can agree with you on this part here.

                However, that is not what defines Creedal Trinitarianism or separates us theologically. The difference between us is when you attempt to claim that the Father and the Son are the same substance/Being. That never was a part of LDS doctrine and never will be.

                Last edited by seven7up; 05-03-2014, 08:48 PM.


                • #98
                  Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                  7UP: Why do you think that talking to God or having the golden plates would automatically impart to Joseph all aspects of theological knowledge all at once?
                  You're really being dense, Seven.... NOBODY is saying that. This is really getting old.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.


                  • #99
                    One God and gods

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I love how you like to take things literally that are obviously figurative in order to support your LDS doctrines, yet when something is clearly literal, but it disproves your doctrine, all of a sudden, and for no reason and with no support, it becomes "figurative"
                    I provide support AND reason. I have done it every time. Why do LDS take the concept of "oneness" figuratively? Because the Bible clearly does.

                    "I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21*that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22*I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23*I in them and you in me..."

                    Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

                    Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

                    2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

                    Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

                    Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

                    LDS use and understand the words the way they are used elsewhere in the Biblical text. Meanwhile, you use vocabulary and definitions derived from the man made creeds. That is why I said this to Bill"
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    David Noel Freedman explained this way:

                    "The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The majority did not like the business at all, and strongly disapproved of the introduction into the Creed new and untraditional and unscriptural terms."

                    The reason why I brought in Ex Nihilo into this discussion, is because the idea of creation "out of nothing" is one of the factors that helped overthrow "subordinationist" views of the Godhead, which were in the majority prior to the formation of Creedal Trinitarianism. If Jesus Christ was made or begotten "out of nothing", then how can He be eternal? Therefore, Trinitarians had to invent concepts like Jesus being constantly issued forth from the Father, who sustains the Son's existence from all eternity and thus is called "eternally begotten". This was a ploy to change the meaning of the language and what it actually means to be "begotten". Don't expect LDS to buy into it. You have to come up with silly things like "functional subordination" , whereby Jesus has to act like he is subordinate to the Father, but he really isn't because they are actually the same being/substance. All of that is nonsense and unBiblical.

                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    This is not a figure of speech, 7up. It is exactly what it says. Yes, it means that there is no peer to the person, but that is exactly what it means literally too. God has no peer! No one, nothing is God besides him! There is only ONE God. Not a "community of Gods"
                    7UP: When Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how God feels about his superiority above all other gods, and then Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how the Babylonians felt they were superior to the other nations. The phrase means the same thing in each case. The idiom means the same thing, even if in one instance it is a true statement (God’s) and in the second instance it is not a true statement (Babylon). Neither one is actually meant to deny the literal existence of other "gods" or other "cities". In fact, the Bible refers to "gods" in several ways A) the True God (Godhead or members within) B) angels (ie "hosts of heaven") C) men who have been given authority by god D) false idols . The only option here that doesn't actually exist is option D.

                    Paul covers this topic as follows in 1 Corinthians and I will insert the letter designated above to indicate which kind of "god" he is referring to:

                    "we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world (D), and that there is no God but one (A). For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords (could be B or C ... B for ones in heaven and C for ones on Earth), 6yet for us there is but one God (a member within A), the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord (a member within A), Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    The word Elohim which is translated "God" can mean "God" or "Judge" - it is the context that matters.
                    I agree that context matters. That is what I have been saying this whole time. The "Most High God" is the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords". There are "gods" which actually exist; that is who Paul refers to when he says "indeed, there are gods many and lords many".

                    Also please note, that most of the New Testament writers, when referring to the "one true God" are referring to the Father ONLY, just as Paul did here. He says, " there is but one God , the Father ... AND one Lord , Jesus Christ. Numerically they are two - God the Father is the "one God" and Jesus Christ is not the same Being, but instead the second, who has inherited the title "Lord" from the Father.

                    In another context, the critics of Jesus accused him of claiming to be equal to God. In response, Jesus referenced the scripture in the Old Testament which says "ye are gods". Were those men just accusing Jesus of claiming to be a "judge"? No, they were trying to argue against the Deity of Jesus. The response of Jesus is to say that anybody who is given divine authority is a god according to the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). Divine authority is one of the keys of godliness, even if those men were still mortal, and very flawed individuals. So, the argument from Jesus is that if God made them gods, then how much more Jesus deserves the title of God , because his authority is only second to the authority of the Father.

                    You make a mistake of thinking that "gods" "angels" and "men" are all ontologically different kinds of beings. That is incorrect. They are all the same kind of being. That is what makes the incarnation possible. If there was truly an "ontological divide" between Deity and man, then Jesus could not have been both Deity and man.

                    I have a yes or no question for you. When the "Most High God" is called the "God of gods", do you really think that it is meant to refer to the Almighty as the "God of (false idols)"? I don't think so.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    Isolated verses? LOL. Please 7up, don't try that crap on us. The bible is FULL of God telling mankind he is the creator, and God and that there is only him and no other God. If you were to chop out all those verses you would end up with a bible half the size it is now. Which is why I am guessing the LDS had to add their own "bible" and even then, Smith had to attempt to rewrite the bible we already have.
                    Again, I explained this:
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                    Jesus Christ (who was Yahweh/Jehovah) in these passages was being compared to the false gods/idols of other nations. He is the one who would pay the penalty for sin, and is the true Savior. The other "gods" of the other nations were figments of their imagination and did not exist, until they "created" and "formed" them from wood, stone, metal, etc. That is the CONTEXT.

                    Were the other members of the Godhead capable of performing the atonement? Maybe. But they didn't. Did God the Father suffer for my sins? No. Did the Holy Spirit suffer for my sins? No. They have a different role than Christ has. But you are missing the point. The Old Testament passages comparing the Lord God of Israel to the "gods" of other nations is NOT meant to be comparing Jesus Christ to God the Father or the Holy Spirit.

                    Again, Jesus would not say "there is no god beside me" or "there is no other god" while standing at the right hand of the Father. In that context, it would be blasphemy.

                    In fact, we know this because Jesus DID say things in this different contexts, such as:

                    'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
                    "If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



                    • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      You are implying that Joseph Smith SHOULD have known that the Father had a tangible embodiment from the very beginning.
                      Well, GEE, since he was supposedly hearing DIRECTLY FROM "the Father", yeah... I think that's a pretty significant detail to get totally WRONG. But, NO, that is NOT what I am implying... I am flat out STATING that Smith said whatever he felt he needed to say to get whatever it was he wanted... like plural marriages, his own bank, Grand PooBah at the local lodge, General of his own army... the guy was an egotist who just made up whatever worked for him.

                      I see.
                      No, you obviously do not.

                      So, Joseph Smith was teaching Creedal Trinitarianism before 1835 , except when he wasn't.
                      YOUR words, but, OK!

                      The power of translation was a way to translate what was on the plates into English.
                      The plates were imaginary, and so was the Urim and Thummim... Smith used seer stones - the same ones he used for money digging.

                      You cannot blame the prophets that Joseph Smith was translating from for not having a complete understanding of the Godhead, when the Israelites did not have a complete understanding of the Godhead either.
                      I don't blame the prophets -- I blame the con man, Joseph Smith, for not being able to keep his stories straight.
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.


                      • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        This is simple Sparko.

                        No fair minded person, who has studied all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, will ever believe that Joseph actually thought he was greater than Jesus. It is contrary to everything that the prophet taught everywhere else.
                        In this case, Smith was very emotional and felt like he was being betrayed and persecuted, not only by the world but by many in his own community. His emotions got the better of him, and his narcissism showed clearly. It is evident in a lot of his writings, but this example of him spewing angrily at everyone that he was better than Jesus was an emotional release that showed his inner self to the world more clearly than previously.

                        Wake up!


                        • Jesus - Chosen from among the "sons of God"

                          I wanted to address something previously being discussed with Bill, because it is important in the "Trinity" discussion.

                          Hebrews chapter 1
                          4 Having become so much better than the angels, as (Jesus) hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
                          5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
                          6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
                          7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
                          8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
                          9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

                          7UP: All of them are "sons of God" in the spiritual sense.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Then to every one of them, He can say that they are His sons, and that makes a mess of this entire chapter.
                          No it doesn't. We have God being the Father in a spiritual sense, and then we have God being the Father in a new and unique sense; unique to Jesus only. There are many "sons of God" in a spiritual sense, of whom Jesus Christ is the Firstbegotten among the other "sons of God". As Paul explained in Col 1:15, Jesus is "the first-born of all creation". This is true of Jesus BEFORE mortality, when all of creation was made subject to Him. This term "first born" is the same Greek term which is in Hebrews chapter 1, and it is also the same as used in Luke 2:7, referring to Jesus being Mary's first child (in mortality). It is the same concept.

                          By right in the Monarchy, this gives Jesus the position of power and authority. God the Father spiritually begat this unique Son into a position of "pre-eminence" which is his "inheritance" because Jesus is the First born (firstbegotten). All that the Father was given to the Son as the creation, and then it is to be glorified/resurrected and presented again in the "new creation". The correct rendering of verse 4 is given above. Jesus was elevated and "became" better than the angels and "by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." This is clearly comparing Jesus to the other angels.

                          The LDS position is that, by nature, Jesus Christ had the inherent characteristics of Deity. In other words, Jesus was a perfect/flawless intelligence from all eternity. However, as the firstbegotten in spirit, power and authority had to be bestowed upon him, and it was. He was chosen and called by the Father a to be the Creator of the physical Universe, and to become the Only Begotten Son according to the flesh. So, the chapter makes perfect sense from this position. By inheriting the name of the Father, and being called from among his fellows to become the Savior of the world, it was decreed that the other sons of God would worship Jesus, because Jesus was to become their Redeemer, and was given power over death. This is possible because of His flawless spirit and inherent characteristics of Deity, he would not sin.

                          Hebrews 1 is teaching a kind of subordinationism was found in the early Christian Church before the Trinity dogma was invented, and it is consistent with the LDS position. In the early second century, the Shepherd of Hermas spoke of the Holy Spirit as “the angel of the prophetic Spirit” and Jesus as the “‘glorious...angel’ or ‘most venerable...angel.’” Justin Martyr in the mid-second century, wrote that Jesus is “another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel.” He is “distinct from Him who made all things,—numerically, I mean, not in will.” Also, Justin wrote “We reverence and worship Him (the Father) and the Son who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of other good angels who are about Him and are made quite like Him, and the Prophetic Spirit.”

                          All of it makes Biblical sense, especially when you consider the two scriptures that I provided for you, where Jesus is called a "Morning Star / Son of the Morning". This is an angelic title. As you and I both know, Lucifer was an angel who is also called a 'son of the morning' or 'morning star'. Indeed there were many, many "sons of the morning" who are the "sons of God".

                          You attempted to imply that only those who do God's will can be considered the "sons of god", whether the the title is applied to humans or spirits (angels). However, we see in the book of Acts, "all the nations" are considered to be God's offspring (Greek - genos). GENOS kindred , offspring, family, stock, (the aggregate of many individuals of the same nature, kind, sort). Also, we see that Lucifer is still considered a "son of the morning" after he had fallen from heaven. "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isa 14:12) So, we can conclude that all spirits and all men are "sons of God" and the "offspring of God", in the original sense and even when "fallen". We can lose the rights and privileges associated with our sonship due to disobedience. I will explain further.

                          Adam is a "son of God" as are all the rest of the human family in the ultimate sense. It is true that with sin, we become alienated from the Father, and in that sense, that we lose our position and the rights that sons would have, but that is not an ontological change (it is not a change of what kind of being we are). In fact, the only reason that we are capable of obtaining "Eternal Life" is because, through Christs atonement, it brings us back to a kind of position before God which we had in paradise, which was previously lost - only now we are as God said to the other gods, "man has become as one of us, knowing good and evil". That is the story of mankind in the Garden of Eden - children of God within God's presence who left that place in order to enter mortality. Again a Biblical story providing a picture of LDS theology; a premortal existence in the presence of God.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No. He is the only begotten son, period. 1 John 4:9 says "9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him." Notice it says He SENT His ONLY BEGOTTEN INTO the world, meaning that Jesus was the only begotten BEFORE coming here.
                          He is also called the "Firstbegotten" who is brought into the world (Hebrews 1) and also the "first born of all creation". Both titles are appropriate BEFORE the incarnation. You are referring to a "foreordination" to become the "Only Begotten Son".

                          "We affirm, on the authority of Holy Scripture, that the Being who is known among men as Jesus of Nazareth, and by all who acknowledge His Godhood as Jesus the Christ, existed with the Father prior to birth in the flesh; and that in the preexistent state He was chosen and ordained to be the one and only Savior and Redeemer of the human race. Foreordination implies and comprises preexistence as an essential condition; therefore scriptures bearing upon the one are germane to the other;" (Talmage - Jesus the Christ)

                          Hebrews verse 9 says the following: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

                          From your position, you have to pretend that Jesus was not chosen or anointed until AFTER he became mortal. We know that this is not true. Look how reasons are given for why the God of Jesus anointed him from among his fellows - namely Jesus loved righteousness and hated iniquity. This must be true before mortality, for Jesus, "Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:20) You cannot claim that God chose Jesus as an afterthought, after he became a man.

                          Furthermore, there is no sense in claiming that Jesus was "elected" or "chosen" or "foreordained", if from before the foundation of the world, there was nobody else to choose from. As I said, the context of Hebrews 1 is clearly discussing angels, and Jesus being elected from among them, thus "becoming better" than them, and "obtaining" a better name than them by inheritance. In Isaiah 42:1, we find these prophetic words about Jesus: “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, my elect/chosen one in whom my soul delights"

                          (Bill posted Deuteronomy 18)
                          15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—
                          18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

                          That is correct. We are ALL brothers. Jesus included. We were brothers before this life and we are brothers in mortality. And we are all created by God in the image and likeness of God. There are many sons of God according to the spirit, but Jesus Christ was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be the Only Begotten according to the flesh. You and I both know that "sons of God" or "children of God" is a title applied to both spirits in Heaven (ie angels), AND it is applied to humans on Earth. Humans are simply spirits (spiritual sons - angels) placed into physical bodies, and our memory is veiled so that we can live in mortality by faith, rather than a perfect knowledge. If God wanted us to have a perfect knowledge of his existence, he could have revealed Himself in glory to the whole world at any time. The idea that angels and humans are different species of beings is an error.

                          7UP: The writer of Hebrews is EQUATING angels and humans, just like Latter Day Saints do.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          No he is not. He is telling the Jews, who were hyper-reverencing angels (as obvious from Justin's Dialogue with Trypho), that they needed to be worshipping their King, because even the angels do.
                          I agree that Jesus should be worshiped, and other angels should not. Again, this is because the "scepter" of the kingdom was passed from the Father only to the first born Son. That is the imagery of the Hebrews 1 passage. This is the Divine Monarchy. The Father is the King and the first born Son of God "obtains" his inheritance by "becoming" the new King - a perfect profile of LDS doctrine.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Only superficially.
                          Not superficially. It matches LDS doctrine in a very deep and rich way. I will tell you what DOES NOT match the text: the idea that the Father and Jesus are the same being/substance. That does not match the text at all.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          I'll trust Jesus over Joseph Smith's lies any day.
                          It is not a matter of you trusting Jesus. You are trusting a faulty an uninspired interpretation of the text. Consider 2 Peter 1:

                          "For he (Jesus) received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

                          What you have in the creeds Bill, are documents formed "by the will of man". Those councils which formed the creeds were full of "private interpretation" and then forced into a vote, and in the case of Nicea, forced by Constantine so that he could consolidate power over the Christian world. Those men in those councils were not holy men speaking as moved by the Holy Spirit.

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Sorry, but you are trying to apply the Deuteronomy prophecy to angels. You are wrong. His "fellows" were the Jews, over whom He was to rule as King and High Priest.
                          I am applying it to the "sons of God", who are both angels and men. They are the same kind of being, only in a different state: one state is a glorious one in the presence of God, and another is a temporarily lower state, as a mortal, subject to infirmity and death and limited in our knowledge of God.

                          7UP explained that in Genesis 48, the text calls Jesus, the God of Israel, "the Angel who redeems me from all evil".

                          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                          Sorry, but the Hebrew word "malak" is not a description of a species, it is a description of a function that one serves in to take a message from one person to another.
                          Thank you for agreeing with me. I agree that the term "angel" does not describe an ontologically different kind of being. In the Old testament, it often simply refers to a spirit son of God, acting as a servant of God before mortality, who is serving as a messenger. This is the case for Jesus as well, who was known as God the Father's mouthpiece in the Old Testament, as Jehovah/Yahweh, "the Word of God", the "Angel of the Lord's presence".



                          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            In this case, Smith was very emotional and felt like he was being betrayed and persecuted, not only by the world but by many in his own community.
                            The Mormon community was in the audience as he spoke, but also people like those who dragged him from his home and tarred and feathered him. They were there too. I agree that he had an emotional response, and understandably so. The Lord even had to calm Joseph, and in a certain sense rebuke him, in these kinds of situations, because Joseph obviously became impatient and frustrated:

                            The word of the Lord to Joseph Smith the Prophet, while a prisoner in the jail at Liberty, Missouri.

                            1 The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;

                            2 While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand.

                            3 And thy people shall never be turned against thee by the testimony of traitors.

                            4 And although their influence shall cast thee into trouble, and into bars and walls, thou shalt be had in honor; and but for a small moment and thy voice shall be more terrible in the midst of thine enemies than the fierce lion, because of thy righteousness; and thy God shall stand by thee forever and ever.

                            5 If thou art called to pass through atribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea;

                            6 If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why can’t you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb;

                            7 And if thou should be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

                            8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

                            9 Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.



                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              And, I have to add... it AMAZES me the extent to which Mormons have to go to downplay the significance of their "Prophet" in order to excuse his foibles.
                              As more information about his life and the inconsistencies of his teaching come to light, that seems inevitable. A very different social dynamic is at work today than when people were giving up their homes and moving cross country to be with him and let him "marry" their wives, daughters, and servants.


                              • Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                This reminds me. Back when I had a lot of time to be clever, I was on a forum where a Trinitarian debated a Oneness theologian (essentially Modalist) in one thread, and that same Trinitarian debated a Latter-Day Saint on another thread. I went through both threads and then posted, in the Trinitarian's own words, a debate against himself. Very amusing.
                                You can certainly make someone seem foolish by taking words intended for one context and applying them to another context. How you ever seen Weird Al's fake interviews with celebrities? Amusing stuff, indeed, but not a reflection of what they actually believe.


                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.