05
May
12

One God?

Lesson 18 of the Gospel Doctrines Class covers Mosiah 12-17 of the Book of Mormon.  The lesson in the teacher’s guide is entitled “God Himself. . .Shall Redeem His People”.  This title is based on Mosiah 15:1 which states:  “And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.”  This obviously refers to Jesus.  Verse 2 continues by saying:  “And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God. . .”  Obviously here, and in many other places, the Book of Mormon refers to Jesus as God.

That sparks many questions.  For example, when and how, according to Mormonism, did Jesus become God?  It teaches that people must have a physical body to become a god since it believes that Heavenly Father has a body.  But it also teaches that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. How, then, was Jesus God before he had a body?  How could he come down already as God to redeem us?  I repeat: How and when, according to Mormonism, did Jesus become God?

Mormonism’s identification with Jesus as Jehovah (LORD) and Heavenly Father as Elohim (God) also breeds confusion. For often the Bible places those two names together to describe one person.  Just one example, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone.  I will make him an help meet for him.” (Genesis 2:18)  Why would the Bible so frequently use LORD God as a description of one person when it is, according to Mormonism, two persons?

Or how about Isaiah 45:21?  “Who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”  How does the Father fit into that verse if there is no God besides the LORD?

Something else that is puzzling is Mormonism’s interpretation of the passages that say there is only one God.  The most common explanation I have heard from Mormons is that this means that there is only one God whom we are to worship.  But who is that God?  Talking about Heavenly Father Gospel Principles says:  “God is the Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship.” (p. 5)

But Jesus often is referred to as the God of this world.  “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Oct. 1977 General Conference) In a news release dated October, Elder M. Russell Ballard answered the question, do you worship Jesus Christ in your Church services, in this way:  “Anyone that visits The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is welcome and you would be, they would be impressed, totally, with the devotion and the center of our faith being Jesus Christ, the son of God. You would hear the name of Jesus Christ mentioned time after time after time. We pray in His name. We teach in His name. We have the communion, or the sacrament we call it, all in His name in remembrance of His atoning sacrifice. We partake of the bread and the water in renewing our covenants we’ve made with Him. When the meeting is concluded we close it in the name of Jesus Christ.”

It’s interesting that he doesn’t come right out and say that they worship Jesus. Some might argue that I am straining at gnats but you see the same distinction made in other places. For example, under “Worship” in True to the Faith it talks only about worshipping the Father.  One example: “As you reverently partake of the sacrament and attend the temple, you remember and worship your Heavenly Father and express your gratitude for His Son, Jesus Christ.” (p. 188)

Does Mormonism espouse both the worship of Heavenly Father and Jesus?  If so, how does that coincide with its explanation of the Bible passages that there is only one God?

These are just some of the questions that arise from Mormonism’s teaching of Jesus.

Advertisements

72 Responses to “One God?”


  1. 1 joshtried
    May 5, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    “For example, when and how, according to Mormonism, did Jesus become God?”
    No idea. A similar question could be asked of God himself. How was God God before there was nothing, if the definition of nothing is 0 things anywhere, yet there is still God? When did God start being God? There are some things that are not particularly important, at least to me, when i reconcile certain things as i know that i will never understand them. At least not in this life.

    “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone.”
    During the creation of the world, God commanded Lord to go and make the world. When they got to man, God asked Lord if man was found on the earth. Lord replied No. God commanded to go make man in “OUR” image, not in “MY” image. Once created, God asked Lord is it good that man be alone, Lord replied No. They agreed that “it is not good that the man should be alone.”

    “But Jesus often is referred to as the God of this world. “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.”
    This is a Christian held view as well. Many other faiths hold true that Jesus was the one who appeared in the burning bush to Moses. They believe that Jesus was the one that physically made this world (which is VERY similar to our belief). There are a few other points in the Bible that MANY Christians hold true as Jesus is the “God” in that spot. To make it seem that we are the only ones with this view would be incorrect.

    “It’s interesting that he doesn’t come right out and say that they worship Jesus”
    I could very well be wrong on this, but in the entire time ive been LDS (8 years), I have never heard anyone say that we worship Christ. As you said above, we do all things THROUGH Jesus Christ.

    Mark, i know we have discussed this before, but the understanding of the word Elohim that i seem to remember gaining through this website was the it can mean “god” and it can mean “judge”. I understand why “god” is used in a majority of places, but there are some (at least one) where i find it prudent to use “judge”. I could very well be mistaken.

    “a just God and a Saviour;…. How does the Father fit into that verse if there is no God besides the LORD?”
    As i discussed above, the are times when God is speaking as God, and when Jesus is speaking as God. I do not 100% know who is speaking here, and i probably should. IF we look at this in the light that God is speaking as God, then he also fits very easily. Also, we see the is both a Just God (God) and a savior (Christ).

  2. 2 choosethechrist
    May 5, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    From the BOM title page: “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God”

    It is my understanding that the BOM shows the nature of the trinity with God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit all being God:

    “…I say unto you, that the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are One; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.” ~4Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 11:27. See also 2 Nephi 31:21, 1 Nephi 13:41; Mormon 7:7, Alma 11:44.

    This is probably because it is believed that Joseph Smith pretty much concocted the BOM from the KJV of the Bible and in the Bible God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are all God.

    As Mormonism evolved, Joseph Smith had to change things to make all of the pieces of his puzzle fit together:

    “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.” ~Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1963, cited by Cowan, Mormon Claims Answered, p. 1.

    “Hence, in LDS theology God has not eternally existed as God. Joseph Smith gave this address in 1844, whereas Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 20 was given in 1830. Thus, the evolution of Smith’s teaching is obvious.” ~~http://www.christiandefense.org/mor_earlyteach.htm

    1830:
    “By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them. . . . Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end (D&C 20:17; 1830)

    1844:
    it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and suppose that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did… Here then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one. . . . (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-47; emphasis added).

    “Does Mormonism espouse both the worship of Heavenly Father and Jesus? If so, how does that coincide with its explanation of the Bible passages that there is only one God?”

    I think mormons posting to this blog in the past have made it clear that they don’t worship Jesus.

    Kind of makes one wonder what exactly Kimball meant by this: “Jesus Christ is the God of this world.” According to what they teach, shouldn’t Jesus be the God of another world by now?

  3. 3 Kent
    May 6, 2012 at 9:25 am

    choosethechrist, good points, the Mormon Church doesn’t even follow their supposed most correct book on earth, at least on points such as it doesn’t say anything about God being a man first, it teaches that God has always been God, and it doesn’t teach anything about men becoming gods and eternal progression either.

    I also couldn’t find anything in the BOM about God having a physical body either. Is that even in the BOM as well?

    So, at least on the parts that were essentially copied from the Bible, the BOM agrees witht the Bible on those points.

    Interesting that the Book of Mormon says that God doesn’t change, that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever and that He created the heavens and the earth and everything in them so, as does the Bible, it shows that there were no planets made yet before God created them for God to have been a man on first.

    The reason I say the BOM says there were no planets for God to have been a man on first before He became God is is because below it says in Mormon 9 below that “God created the heavens and the earth, and all things that are in them.” So it follows that there were no heavens and earth and there were no things in them, including planets, before God created them.

    Mormon 9:9-11

    9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

    10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

    11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

    Isn’t it contradiction for Mormons to make a big deal about how they believe the Book of Mormon is true, part of their testismonies, but they don’t even follow it on some key points as they go by their later scriptures and/or statements by their leaders, that actually, on some points, contradict it?

  4. 4 Kent
    May 6, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    joshtried said, ““For example, when and how, according to Mormonism, did Jesus become God?”
    No idea. A similar question could be asked of God himself. How was God God before there was nothing, if the definition of nothing is 0 things anywhere, yet there is still God? When did God start being God? There are some things that are not particularly important, at least to me, when i reconcile certain things as i know that i will never understand them. At least not in this life. ”

    God never started being God as He has always been God and yes it is hard to understand how God can transcend time and even space but the truth is He is God and we are not and He can do anything because He is God.

    But if He has always been God and He didn’t progress to become God, then none of us can progress to a god either.

    I know you likely feel you or another Mormon who posts here has answered the statement I am going to make here, that people haven’t submitted to God’s righteousness and they are trying to establish their own righteousness by believing they can become gods but I will post the Bible passages that 1. it is wrong to establish our own righteousness and 2. all our righteousness is worthless, are like filthy rags.

    Isaiah 64:6

    6 But we are all like an unclean thing,
    And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
    We all fade as a leaf,
    And our iniquities, like the wind,
    Have taken us away.

    Romans 10:1-4

    1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

    One more thing, we cannot work for our righteousness, so we can’t progress (work) to become righteous.

    But there is one thing we can do and that is do the work that Jesus Himself said to do which isn’t works at all but is believing in He (Jesus) whom He (the Father) sent.

    John 6:28-29

    28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

    29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

  5. 5 joshtried
    May 6, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Stating that mormons try and work out their own righteousness is wrong. We have shown you at least 10x over how this is wrong.

  6. 6 Kent
    May 6, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    choosethechrist said, “Hence, in LDS theology God has not eternally existed as God. Joseph Smith gave this address in 1844, whereas Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 20 was given in 1830. Thus, the evolution of Smith’s teaching is obvious.” ~~http://www.christiandefense.org/mor_earlyteach.htm

    You are right, they now say that God hasn’t always been God but that hasn’t always been the case as not only does the passage from the Doctrine and Covenants from 1830 state that God has always been God, as I stated, the Book of Mormon says the same thing.

    So these are very obvious contradictions.

    So people either believe that God doesn’t change that He has always been God:

    1830:
    “By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them. . . . Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end (D&C 20:17; 1830)

    AND

    Mormon 9:9-11

    9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

    10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

    11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

    OR

    Believe the contradiction that God hasn’t always been God that He was a man first.

    1844:
    it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and suppose that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see. and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did… Here then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priest to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one. . . . (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345-47; emphasis added).

    Mormons, why don’t you follow what you call the most correct book of earth, the book you say in your testimonies is true, that says God has always been God, which is backed up by the passage from 1830 in your Doctrine and Covenants? After all you say that you asked God if it is true and you claim He showed you it is true.

  7. 7 joshtried
    May 6, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Let me ask you a similar question Kent. Why dont you believe Genesis when it uses the words “US” and “OUR”. If there was nothing else in the universe yet created, then there could be no multiplicity.

    Gen 1:26 And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
    He uses plural forms THREE times in the very first chapter in the very first book of the Bible.

    Does God have a physical body? it says right here… “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. What likeness and image is there to be made after if God does not look and work like a man?

    How was there evil at all if nothing had yet been created? How was there Satan able to tempt the woman if there was nothing created? This is impossible. God would have had to create Satan specifically to do evil and place Satan in the garden in order to tempt her. This also contradicts your theory that the fall was a good thing. If the Fall was not supposed to happen, then why would God create Satan and place Satan in the midst of the garden with Adam and Eve? Why would an omnipotent God then, AFTER creating Satan and Satan causing Eve and Adam to fall, THEN create the plan of salvation that would save all of man kind? This would be the most jack up God i could ever imagine. This is one that does not act, but reacts. This is one that does not prepare. This is one that is forced into a position by Man and Man’s doing. Some God this is.
    Yet, you choose to accept this as even partially viable? I think it was Isaiah that we quoted that say ~ “who is man to question God, who is the clay to ask the Master what kind of pot he will be?” (i am horrible at quoting… this is obviously paraphrased). Yet here you stand, saying that God was moved by man to create the plan of salvation.

  8. 8 shematwater
    May 6, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    I would like to answer just a few questions here.

    “How and when, according to Mormonism, did Jesus become God?”

    A distinction must be made between God, the title (shown with a capital G), and god, the state of being (shown with a lower case g).
    Jesus Christ became God before this world was made. That is to say that he attained to the authoirty and power that gave him the right to be called by this title. This is why he is called God in the Old Testament.
    However, at this time he was still a spirit, and thus had not yet progressed to the state of being that is decribed as godhood. This was attained after the resurrection. For this reason he commands in Matthew 5: 48 “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” But after his resurrection he commands “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.” (3 Nephi 12: 48). He did not claim himself to be perfect until after he had been resurrected and glorified. In both cases the Greek that is translated as perfect means to be complete or finsihed.
    This was understood by Paul, as he wrote to the Hebrews that “after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (Hebrews 10: 12) showing that it was after his resurrection that he gained his full glory.

    “Why would the Bible so frequently use LORD God as a description of one person when it is, according to Mormonism, two persons?”

    Because it is not refering to a person. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in his book Mormon Doctrine, wrote “By uniting the sacred names Lord and God into such reverentail combinations as God the Lord, or Lord God, superlative expression is made of the majesty, omnipotence, and glory of Deity. These names – used, as the various scriputral contexts show, with reference to both the Father and the Son…”
    Thus the term is not a direct reference to the persons, but to their power and authority.

    The last thing I would like to mention is the rediculousness that Joseph Smith ever taught, either in the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants, that God was always God and all that.
    Just to make things simple: The phrase “yesterday, today, and forever” does not mean what you are claiming. Yesterday refers to the pre-mortal spirit existence of all men, at which time the Father and Jesus were God. Today refers to this mortal existence, in which the Father and Jesus are God. Forever refers to all ages of eternity that are to follow, in which the Father and Jesus will be God. The phrase does not deal with any time prior to our pre-mortal existence.
    There is a similiar truth regarding the phrase “from all eternity to all eternity” or “From everlasting to everlasting.” These have reference to periods of eternal time between periods of mortal time. Thus the Father is God from Everlasting to everlasting, or from one eternal period to the next. Jesus is also God from all eternity to all eternity, or from one eternal time to the next.
    This is also why it is said of those that attain exaltation that “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue”

  9. 9 markcares
    May 6, 2012 at 5:51 pm

    Josh:
    On your question about the “us” in Genesis. Christians have always acknowledged that. The us refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I don’t know who you have talked to who has denied that.
    It has been my experience that many Mormons misrepresent what Christianity teaches about the Trinity. The tri in Trinity points to the fact that we believe that there are three separate persons. But we also believe that these three separate persons constitute the one God. I can’t understand and thus can’t explain how three distinct persons can only be one God. But that is who God is. In fact, I will go further and say any reasonable explanation is wrong on the face of it because God is truly unfathomable. Instead of being frustrated by that, I am happy about that – because it shows me that my God is great that he is way beyond me.

  10. 10 markcares
    May 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Shem:
    All I can say is that when people redefine words to make them say what they want them to say, there is no possibility of dialogue. Words then have lost all meaning.

  11. 11 shematwater
    May 7, 2012 at 1:52 am

    JOSH

    In other words if it makes sense it can’t describe God.

    MARK

    If eternal life is to know God, but God is unknowable, than no one can have eternal life for no one can know God.

    As to word; language is a fluid thing, always changing. The meaning of words change.
    For instance, we currently use the term gossip to refer to iddle talk or rumors. However, up until the 1600’s it meant ones close friends. The meaning changed because Shakespeare decided to use it in the modern way for one of his plays.
    Another example: Lunch today refers to the noon meal. In the middle ages they didn’t have a noon meal, and the word lunch refered to a small snack that could be carried with you on a journey.
    To deny that language changes, and that word meaning changes, is to deny the very essense of langauge itself. To claim that because we use a different meaning, or more than one meaning for a word makes dialogue useless is merely an attempt to shut down a conversation. That is to say that you are demanding that everyone use the exact same dictionary as you, and that you refuse to talk to anyone who doesn’t conform to your use of language.

    I answered your questions, and since you asked what we believed I answered using our understanding. Deal with it.

  12. 12 joshtried
    May 7, 2012 at 1:54 am

    Mark, I have 2 questions. The first, I know you said you cant answer, but it needs asking anyway. How in the world do you differentiate 3 people in 1 God? I know that you wont see it this way, but to me what you are saying when you say this is that they cannot act independently. If they are unable to act independently, then Christ was not really tempted, and 90% of what Christ did was simply a matter of “going through the motions.”

    Second, when you reference Shem redefining words, i really do question which word/words. Yesterday literally means the day previous this day (The day before today per Google dictionary). If the absolute most distant date we have on record was the day that God created this world, then God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, as God would have been God the day before the creation of the world, as he had to decide to create the world sometime. We (LDS) hold that this was a very well planned out process, meaning that planning did not merely last one day (although theoretically it could, it doesnt mesh with the whole war in heaven thing either, which we know happened before the creation of the world). So, we hold yesterday to actually be further that “just” yesterday, and that it was for a very long period of time prior to creation. Today literally means this day, and once the clock passes 23:59:59 today becomes yesterday and tomorrow becomes today. Forever (Google’s first definition) means for all future time; for always, which works with the phrasing of the sentence as well, as in past present and future. If we are discussing “eternity” as the thing that Shem got wrong, there are many views on eternity, just as there are many beliefs in the bible. Through wikipedia: While in the popular mind, eternity (or foreverness) often simply means existence for a limitless amount of time, many have used it to refer to a timeless existence altogether outside time. By contrast, infinite temporal existence is then called sempiternity. Something eternal exists outside time; by contrast, something sempiternal exists throughout an infinite time. Sempiternity is also known as everlastingness.[1] There are a number of arguments for eternity, by which proponents of the concept, principally Aristotle, purported to prove that matter, motion, and time must have existed eternally. Then, later on wikipedia (same page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity ) we come to my question: The idea of God being outside of time is a result of much thought amongst theists on the “Who created God” or “What was there before God?” questions. The main scriptural clue is found in 2Pe:3:8: “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” If we are discussing everlasting (again with the Google definition) we come up with Lasting forever or for a very long time. In this, we come back to “forever” which through text book definition is basically seen as “from this point forward.” Unless some of this is flawed, then everything Shem posted is completely plausible.

    Finally mark, this statement from you kind of baffles me, especially as a minister. “I can’t understand and thus can’t explain how three distinct persons can only be one God. But that is who God is. In fact, I will go further and say any reasonable explanation is wrong on the face of it because God is truly unfathomable.”
    God is not completely unfathomable. God is unchanging, and as such, we can learn a LOT by reading our history of him (or the old testament). I will by no means say that there is not infinitely more that we can learn, but i really dont know. Maybe there is, maybe there isnt. By making him completely unable for us to understand anything, you have eliminated any possibility of us returning to Him. God said “I am sending a savior.” If we are unable to understand this, then we can not accept the savior, ANYTIME ever. God would have to completely and utterly control our lives in order for us to have the potential to return to him. We know God wont sin, so if WE sin, especially after we claim God has control of our lives, we are lying if we try and say that God has complete control over our lives. The Bible was given to us so that we could understand God, not so we could be in utter darkness. If the God chose us, then there would be absolutely no need for the Bible. If we cant understand ANYTHING about God, the Bible is especially pointless since it is the word of God.

  13. 13 joshtried
    May 7, 2012 at 2:06 am

    to speak a little more on redefining words Mark, Christian VS LDS “saved” means 2 different things. It does not negate how each use them, simply because you want them negated. It simply means that we must work a little harder to better facilitate meaningful conversation between the 2 sides. If you would, please elaborate on which word you feel was misused so that we can discuss it appropriately and remove any misconceptions from your thought process regarding LDS theology, or our specific beliefs listed here.

  14. 14 joshtried
    May 7, 2012 at 2:10 am

    or any misconception from our thoughts regarding how we used the word. i realized after posting this it kind of sounded like “YOUR WRONG”, and at this point in time, i am trying to fray away from that. Obviously, it wont always be like that…..

  15. 15 JBR
    May 7, 2012 at 3:42 am

    Marks says:
    “All I can say is that when people redefine words to make them say what they want them to say, there is no possibility of dialogue. Words then have lost all meaning.”

    As Satan once said.. “Did God really say” as he went about slightly changing the words to mean something other than what was commanded. As Adam and Eve soon discovered, that doing all that they could do, was Satan’s advice.

  16. 16 joshtried
    May 7, 2012 at 3:50 am

    So JBR, every definition of every word was written in stone before adam and eve got there? How did Satan even get into the garden JBR? Did God place Satan there, or was Satan created before hand?

  17. 17 joshtried
    May 7, 2012 at 3:52 am

    How did the words adam and eve use have definition if there was no use for words before the creation of everything? Was God scitzophrenically talking to himself for eons?

  18. 18 JBR
    May 7, 2012 at 4:57 am

    Josh asks:………” Was God scitzophrenically talking to himself for eons?”

    ah…that’s like asking:
    “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

    No matter how you answer that, I can change meanings of the words to my advantage to either accuse you or compliment you.

    I’ll let you wait for the answer and have God tell you himself what he thinks of such questions ….. how’s that?

  19. 19 shematwater
    May 7, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    JBR

    Okay. Let us try it.

    Q. “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

    A. “I have never once beat my wife, except at games, and so there is nothing that needs to be stopped.”

  20. 20 shematwater
    May 7, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    JBR

    One other note; Satan never changed the meaning of any word. What he did was to accuse God of lying. He never tried to convince Eve that the words God used meant something they didn’t, but that God used those words to deceive her and keep her from progressing.

  21. 21 markcares
    May 7, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Shem:
    I would focus on the distinction that you made between God and god. I think I can use the word “quite rare” to describe the distinction you made. Can you show me a non-LDS source that uses it like that? In fact, I would even be interested in seeing a LDS source.
    Josh:
    What I meant was is that we can’t understand God’s nature. That doesn’t mean, however, that I can’t understand his working for me – like sending a Savior. I know he sent a Savior who did everything for me – who made me completely worthy in his sight – who gives me eternal life as his gift to me.

  22. 22 JBR
    May 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Shem,
    There’s just one little exception to your answer … God doesn’t play games, so making such accusations of his character is Satanical sarcasm. And for that you’d be found guily of beating your wife …. don’t forget that just a mere stumble against the law and t your guilty of breaking all of the laws.

    Yes Satan did change the meaning, he used “your shall surely die” as a positive thing…much like how Mormonism views the fall into sin. Satan used Mormonism’s stated goal… to be like god.

  23. 23 JBR
    May 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    Should read:

    “just a mere stumble against the law and your guilty of breaking all of the laws.”

    ” he used “you shall surely die” as a positive thing”

  24. 24 Kent
    May 7, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    To any Mormons who are questioning what their church teaches, I truly believe you are taking a big chance by not following the gospel that is only found in the Bible. It is not about someone being a prophet, it is not about a particular church being true (but they do need to teach the true gospel), it is not about some other book other than the Bible being true, it is not about following a bunch of oridanances and rules, and it is not about some church leaders being the proper authority, etc.

    The gospel is only all about what Jesus did on the cross to pay the penalty we all deserve by dying and rising again on the third day to save us, sinners who cannot ever save ourselves, It is Jesus alone that saves us.

    Again, directly below is the gospel and it is not me saying this is the gospel it is the Bible itself, divinely imspired by God, that is saying it.

    1 Corinthians 15:1-4

    1 Moreover, brethren, I DECLARE TO YOU THE GOSPEL WHICH I PREACHED TO YOU, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
    3 FOR I DELIVERED TO YOU FIRST OF ALL THAT WHICH I ALSO RECEIVED: THAT CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, 4 AND THAT HE WAS BURIED, AND THAT HE ROSE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES

    Directly below is what we must do to be saved, we need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and it is not me saying it, it is the Bible, divinely imspired by God saying it:

    Acts 16:30-34

    30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
    31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

    We believe on the Lord Jesus Christ by confessing with our mouths the Lord Jesus and believing in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead. It is not me saying it, it is the Bible, directly below, divinely imspired by God saying it.

    Romans 10:9-13

    9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13 For “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

    Finally, It is not about what you do, it is about what He did and it is finished by His work on the cross.

    Below is the work you need to do, believe in Him (Jesus) whom He (Heavenly Father) sent, Jesus Christ Himself said this! It is not me saying it.

    John 6:28-29

    28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
    29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”

    I hope and pray that someone here takes the time to read the above passages from the Bible and takes them to heart. You can know now this very moment, not later if you are worthy enough, that you can for sure be able to live with Heavenly Father forever!

    SAVED=ETERNAL LIFE=EVERLASTING LIFE

    I have given all of the information that I needed to pass on, so for now, I won’t be commenting here further.

  25. 25 Kent
    May 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm

    One more parting comment, at least for now, the gospel didn’t need to be restored, it was never lost in the first place.

  26. 26 joshtried
    May 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Kent, you have stated part of what we need to do to go to heaven, and even got it completely right in one of your quotes. “And immediately he and all his family were baptized.” Even the thief that was on the cross did not go directly to heaven, he went to paradise, which some see as purgatory, or Abraham’s bosom. He was not baptized and therefore could not enter heaven.

    The question then becomes how exactly is one properly baptized? After baptism, we receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

    Mark, since you are a minister/preacher, i have 2 follow on questions for you. How did you receive the power to baptize someone? How do you receive the power to confer the holy ghost to someone? I really and truthfully do not mean this in a bad way, and dont hope to twist what you say. I want to honestly approach baptism under our 2 faiths with regard to who is right. MY understanding of baptism is that it must be performed by someone holding authority to baptize. Jesus did not go to someone random, he went to John the Baptist, and he went there for a reason.

  27. 27 markcares
    May 8, 2012 at 1:00 am

    Josh:
    We take I Peter 2:9 seriously and believe that every believer is a priest before God. Therefore every believer has the authority to baptize.

  28. 28 joshtried
    May 8, 2012 at 2:15 am

    Acts 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

    I understand where you are trying to come from Mark, but i cannot reconcile this thought with Acts. I understand that you may not feel this is particularly the same, as Simon was trying to buy his way into giving the holy ghost. Regardless, i see a person that cannot and does not hold this authority. We see just before this something else: Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
    They were baptized by someone with proper authority to baptize, and were given the holy ghost by those with the authority to give it. Perhaps this is just me, but if any person could do this, then why is this not yet happening during the time that the apostles walked the earth? Maybe i am just missing a part where someone without direct authority performed these ordinances. If this is the case, can you please show me a biblical reference for such? Even a non-biblical reference would be helpful for my personal study. I am in the process of reading The bondage of the Will (ordered the wrong copy, correct copy is on the way), so i am not excluding any material. I honestly want to understand how it is you have come to the conclusions you have.

    Also, i do not know your view on “every believer”, so at this point I am taking it literally to mean every single one. This is contrary to 1 timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.2 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (this next part is taken from http://www.gotquestions.org/women-pastors.html ). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9; masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons. To me, this tells specifically how women would not have the same types of authority as a man. Personally, i have never seen a women perform a baptism. I have not always been LDS, and i have still not seen a woman perform this.

    Thank you by the way, for taking the time personally to respond. I know that your time is often spent in other pursuits.

  29. 29 shematwater
    May 8, 2012 at 4:05 am

    JBR

    You have failed the challenge, for you have not changed the meaning of any of the words that I used. All you did was to dismiss part of what I said. This is very different.
    To point it out, you did not change the meaning of the word game, or beat. What you did was to say that God does nto play games, allowing you to ignore the meaning of this word.
    Nice try though. You are rather devious.

    As to Satan, he never once changed the meaning of “you shall surely die.” What he did was to say that it wasn’t true. Read it again.
    Genesis 3: 4-5 “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
    He doesn’t say that “ye shall surely die” does not mean what it says. He admits that it means exactly that. What he does is say that it is a false statement, and then says that God told Eve this to keep her from becoming like God. There is no changing of word meanings here.

    MARK

    It is taught in the LDS doctrine. The concepts that I have outlined are what we believe.
    Note, from Mormon Doctrine, under the entry of Christ, we read: “By obedience and devotion to truth to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent while yet in his pre-existent state.” (pg. 129)
    Then take a look at the Teachers Resource Manual for the Book of Mormon, the chapter dealing with 3 Nephi 11-14 https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-teacher-resource-manual/3-nephi-11%E2%80%9314?lang=eng
    Under the explanation for chapter 12: 48, which I quoted, as answer to the fourth question listed you will read the following: “Matthew 5:48; 3 Nephi 12:48. Note that Jesus Christ referred to Himself as perfect only after His Resurrection. There are two kinds of perfection: mortal perfection, which is mastering certain tasks in this life, and eternal perfection, which can only take place after the Resurrection.” In this same section there is a lengthy quote from Russell M. Nelson, in Conference Report, Sept.–Oct. 1995, 115–16; or Ensign, Nov. 1995, 86–87 that explains this in detail, showing that eternal life can only be gained after one is resurrected.
    Now, you know as well as I that the doctrine of the LDS church teaches that only those who attain exaltation, or eternal life will become gods. This is what is taught in D&C 132: 20, which I quoted but forget to cite (sorry). Thus it can be rightly said that those who attain eternal life have attained godhood, which cannot be attained until after the resurrection.
    So, we know that Christ was God long before this world was created, as shown in Mormon Doctrine, and taught in any basic Gospel Principles class. We also know that eternal perfection, what is called eternal life, or godhood, cannot be attained until after this life and the resurrection, which perfection Christ did not claim until he had fulfilled these requirements. Thus there must be a distinction made between the God that Christ was before this existence and the god he became after it; the first being a title to designate his power and authority as deity, and the other to describe the state of being that the righteous will attain to after this life.

    I do not make these things up, nor do I use terms that are not familiar to the LDS church and its members.

  30. 30 markcares
    May 8, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    Josh:
    Thanks for your questions. Yes, I take 1 Peter 2:9 to refer to all believers – male and female. And yes, I have seen women perform baptisms. The most common situation I have seen that is in the hospital where a Christian nurse has baptized a seriously ill infant. (Yes, we believe that when Jesus commanded all nations to be baptized that includes infants – but that is another topic.) I have heard Christian parents asking nurses or doctors to do that in case something goes wrong doing the birth.
    We also believe that 1 Timothy 2 restricts women from teaching. That is why, for example, we don’t have women pastors in our church body. But baptizing is not a function of teaching. They are two different things.
    I hope this helps.
    Now a question for you: If you take 1 Peter 2:9 to refer to all believers, how do you reconcile that with Mormonism’s granting of the priesthood to only males? I know that it teaches that women benefit from the priesthood but that is not what this verse says. It says that all are priests.
    By the way, I am impressed by your reading the Bondage of the Will. It is not the easiest book to read. As you read it, I will be curious to hear your reactions especially as it relates to Mormonism’s teaching on agency.

  31. 31 markcares
    May 8, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    Shem:
    So according to your distinction between God and god, the people addressed in Psalm 82:6 had already attained to the state of being god?

  32. 32 shematwater
    May 8, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Mark:

    Psalm 82 is a peculiar psalm. No, I would not say they had already achieved that state. The reason for this is because Christ referenced this psalm in John 10: 34-36 when he said “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”
    So, according to Jesus this psalm is addressing the mortal rulers of Israel, and thus they were not in the state of godhood. However, this same understanding can be applied to this psalm in a symbolical way. As one has put it, we are gods in embryo, and so to call us gods, especially to call those given authority on earth by God gods, is a more express way of describing their nature and potential.

    1 Peter 2: 9
    “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”

    This verse does not say that every member holds the authority of the priesthood, but that they are all part of the royal family that does. When looking at a royal line in the classical sense it was the men who held the authority, though the women still had the prestige and honor of being royal.
    In other words, the princess did not have the authority to knight anyone, but was still treated as a princess. The queen did not have authority to name the heir to the throne, but she was still treated as a queen.
    This is how we look at this verse. Men hold the authority of the Priesthood, but women are still to be treated as if they did.

  33. 33 markcares
    May 8, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Shem:
    Here is an example of what I meant before when you redefine words. I Peter 2:9 says ye are a royal priesthood. Not that they all part of a royal family that does. It doesn’t say that women are to be treated as if they did.

  34. 34 shematwater
    May 8, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    MARK

    I changed nothing, and I really wish you would stop accusing me of this. I never denied that women are part of the priesthood. However, they do not hold the authority of the priesthood. Just as in a royal family the women were still royalty, but did not hold the authority to pass laws and judgment.
    It is you who is trying to change the meaning of the term royal to include authority, when all it means is to be a member of a family that has authority.

  35. 35 markcares
    May 8, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    “A worthy male member of the Church receives the priesthood ‘by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.’ (Articles of Faith1:5).” Gospel Principles, p. 69. How do LDS women receive the priesthood?

  36. 36 markcares
    May 8, 2012 at 10:32 pm

    From Mormon.org: “Gordon B. Hinckley, prior President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:

    “Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. “

  37. 37 joshtried
    May 8, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    Now a question for you: If you take 1 Peter 2:9 to refer to all believers, how do you reconcile that with Mormonism’s granting of the priesthood to only males?
    Mark, women have authority to act in the name of God. This is not to say they hold every office that a man has. In what I wrote above, we see that “nor to usurp authority over the man.” If women were able to hold authority in all offices, they would in essence usurp said authority and then be in violation of 1 timothy. This is not to say that women are unable to call upon God for a blessing or a healing, but this is greatly different from performing a “saving” ordinance. They do have authority to also perform washing and anointing. There are many things they do, but performing baptisms and conferring the holy ghost is not included in this. Every person that believes in God may call upon his name. Not everyone that believes in God has the authority to perform certain ordinances, like conferring the Holy Ghost. If they did, then Simon would not have asked to be able to perform this (regardless of him trying to pay money), he would have just went out and done it. There is a difference between general authority and specific authority. I believe 1 peter 2 to be speaking to the general authority to call on the name of God, vs the specific authority to perform baptisms or other things.

  38. 38 shematwater
    May 9, 2012 at 12:57 am

    I would like to know what Mark’s point is as what he is referencing states exactly what I have said.

    I like how Josh puts it though, making a distinction between general and specific authority. Thus all members of a royal family have the same general authority and prestige that goes with that classification, but only a few have the specific power to govern.

  39. 39 choosethechrist
    May 9, 2012 at 12:27 pm

    Hebrews 7

    You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.”

    18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

    20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

    “The Lord has sworn
    and will not change his mind:
    ‘You are a priest forever.’”

    22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

    23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. 25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

    26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

    I like how God puts it better, no one needs a mormon to perform “saving ordinances” for them. Jesus is our high priest, we don’t need a middle man between God and us because we have direct access to him anytime, anyplace. Jesus saves us when we come to him and we are filled with the Holy Spirit when we do this. We are saved by Jesus who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners and exalted above the heavens which is MUCH better than being saved by some imperfect, sinful, mormon man who thinks he has the authority to “save”.

    *******************************************************25 Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. ***************************************************

  40. 40 choosethechrist
    May 9, 2012 at 12:47 pm

    God pours the Holy Spirit on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior.

    Titus 3:5-7
    5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

    “He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Jesus does not save us through a physical washing, but by a spiritual washing and renewal. Our physical baptism with water symbolizes the spiritual washing that comes from the Holy Spirit which is “poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ”.

    Matthew 3:11
    “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

  41. 41 choosethechrist
    May 9, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Acts 10:44-48
    44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

    Then Peter said, 47 “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

    The Holy Spirit was confired on these believers without the laying on of hands through a middle man. God used physical, visible, manifestations/signs of His covenants/promises in order to increase the belief/faith of those who were a witness of the event i.e. the rainbow, the blood shed at circumsion, speaking in tongues, the last supper, etc.

    Acts 2 (another example of a visible manifestation)
    When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. NOTE, no laying on of hands.

    In Acts 10:44-48, God used speaking in tongues to show the jews that He meant what He said when He promised to include the Gentiles in the new covenant.

    To this day, laying on of hands and baptism is a physical representation of that which has occured, but can’t be seen. We show those around us what we have done when we receive a physical baptism, but it is not the water or the person doing the baptizing that saves us or confirs the Holy Spirit on us because the reality is that Jesus Christ does that for us and this can not be seen with the eyes.

    Colossians 2:11-12
    11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

    We are raised with him through FAITH via baptism of the spirit, not through the physical baptism of water.

  42. 42 choosethechrist
    May 9, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    1 Corinthians 1:14-17
    14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

    Here is another example of why we don’t need mormon men to perform “saving ordinances” for us. Paul knew that it was the message of the gospel that would lead people to faith in Christ. He knew that it is the message of the gospel that saves, not the physical act of a water baptism i.e. Acts 10:44-48 The people heard the message of the gospel, believed, put their faith in Jesus, received the Holy Spirit, were saved and then had a water baptism.

  43. 43 joshtried
    May 9, 2012 at 7:09 pm

    For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel
    This doesnt say that a middle man is not needed, because they still had to be baptized. This says that HIS JOB is not to baptize. He is also referring to a people that thought he himself had the power to clean, and that he was not acting through Christ to clean. He said “thank God i didnt baptize you and you tried to claim I cleaned you, cause that is wrong.” He is not saying that the people did not still need to be baptized, he is saying that HE is not supposed to do it, and is thankful that he had not yet done the work, because the people would have been wrong, and he would have aided them in being wrong.

    gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles.
    The comforter (holy ghost) visits us all before we are baptized. He is the one that says “Yes, this is correct.” That is different from being able to CONTINUALLY have the holy ghost with you. Peter was also dealing with a situation where these people would probably not have otherwise been baptized. He we see “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water”, so unless someone was trying to stand in the way before, why would he have said this? He was using the physical manifestation as proof to others that they were to be baptized, they were to be counted as the children of God.

    You said: Jesus does not save us through a physical washing
    John 3:5 says “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” So, either you or the Bible is incorrect on this point. I choose to believe this point in the Bible when is say BORN OF WATER AND OF THE SPIRIT, not ONLY born of the spirit..

    You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.
    We have discussed this before, and some have tried to claim that this is non-transferable. If it was not transferable, then the original Melchizedek was not a priest after this order. Since he was, this power must therefore be transferable. Otherwise, Christ himself could not be a Melchizedek priest, cause only one can, and chronologically, someone else beat him to it.

    24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.
    I also have a permanent priesthood. When i die, Christ will bring me back to life. I will have a physical death, just as Christ did. I will not have a spiritual death. I will continue in my office as a priest.

    “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry”
    Why is John doing this at all if someone is going to come and do it by spirit, and he knows this? There would be absolutely no point in ever doing a water baptism if this was the case.

    In all of this, i am not advocating water baptism is the only necessary thing, I am merely stating that it is PART of a WHOLE of necessary things. To deny this is literally to deny the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

  44. 44 shematwater
    May 9, 2012 at 7:20 pm

    CHOOSE

    All this denies that Christ taught that “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16: 16) and that “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 5)

    Yes, baptism in water is an outward symbol of convertion. But if there is no outward symbol than convertion is not complete and will profit nothing. Baptism is required, and this is taught throughout the New Testament.

    Let us look at a few things that you quote. The simple ones first.

    Acts 2: 1-4
    Note that this is talking about those who had been disciples of Christ during his mortal life. No, there is no laying on of hands in this account, because these people had already received the ordinance. Actually, a number of the twelve had been baptized by John the Baptist.
    If you care to read farther in the story, verses 37-38, after Peter and the Apostles had preeched the gospel, the crowds asked them “Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
    Seems clear that baptism is not only required, but that Peter declares it to be a prerequisite to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Titus 3: 5-7
    “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”
    Note that two separate things are being described here. There is the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The first is baptism by water, which washes us body and spirit, and regenrates our spirit. The second is the gift of the Holy Ghost which renews our spirit in new life with Christ.
    You combining them into one thing is not the only way to see the meaning, and with the different punctuation used in the KJV not even the most logical.

    Matthew 3: 11
    Exactly. John had only authority to baptize by water, but Christ restored the authority to baptize with the spirit. Both are needed.
    This fits nicely with Acts 19: 2-6 which tells of Paul in Ephasus.
    “He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
    And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
    Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
    When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
    And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.”
    Obviously there are two different baptisms; one of water and one of spirit (see John 3: 5); both being necessary.

    Acts 10: 44-48
    Why would Peter command them to be baptized if it is so unnecessary?
    The spirit can fall on whom it chooses, but the gift of the Holy Ghost comes only after baptism and must be confired by one holding authority.

    Colossians 2: 11-12
    Your interpretation does not fit the verse or the context. You miss half the symbolism as you ignore the first part of being buried.
    What Paul is saying is that being immersed in water is a symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection; and when we are raised out of the water, provided we truly have faith in Christ, we are saved with him. It is a great combining of the ordinance with faith that we get the true meaning of Paul’s words.

    1 Corinthians 1: 14-17
    It is true that the gospel is what brings people to faith, and that faith is what leads them to be baptized. But in this particular reference Paul is talking about the possible divisions that could arise from people claiming prestige or authority based on who baptized them. He was thankful that his work could not lead to such division, because he did not actually baptize anyone (or at least few people).

    Hebrews 7: 18-26
    The one thing this passage does not tell us is how we “come unto God by him” (verse 25). Of course, since almost every passage that deals with the how tells us to repent and be baptized we can safely say that this is what Paul had in mind. We come to God through Christ by first, having faith in Christ; then repenting, then being baptized, and lastly by receiving the Holy Ghost.

  45. 45 choosethechrist
    May 9, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    “Water baptism is a sacrament, like the Lord’s Supper. Both are symbols of the reality of our salvation in Christ. Just as we do not literally eat Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, we are not literally saved by water trickling over our skin.”

    Mormonism is a works based religion with works based requirements so it is no wonder that they would now choose to use the “corrupt” Bible to justify their works based beliefs.

    Correct Formula: GRACE THROUGH FAITH = SALVATION + WORKS
    Incorrect Formula (LDS): GRACE THROUGH FAITH + WORKS = SALVATION

    http://www.faithfacts.org/world-religions-and-theology/101-reasons-baptism-not-necessary-for-salvation

  46. 47 choosethechrist
    May 9, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Oct. 1977 General Conference)

    I’m trying to figure out why Spencer Kimball would refer to Jesus as the God of this world:

    2 Corinthians 4:4
    4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

    John 18:36 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

    Brigham Young: “I tell you more: Adam is the father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth, he did abide his creation and did honor to his calling and priesthood and obeyed his master or lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived and died upon an earth and then were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life. (Brigham Young, October 8, 1854, Brigham Young Addresses, 1850-1854, Vol. 2, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 221)

    It seems to me that BY said that Adam is the God of this World since BY said that Adam is the father of our spirits.

    “President Young followed and made many good remarks . . . He said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ–Our God was no more or less than Adam . . . Michael the Archangel” (Wilford Woodruff Private Journal, Feb 19. 1854)

    “Is there in heaven of heavens a leader? Yes, and we cannot do without one and that being the case, whoever he is may be called God. Joseph said that Adam was our Father and God” (Brigham Young, Journal History of the Church, May 14, 1876)

    “I tell you, when you see your Father in heaven, you will see Adam . . .” (Manuscript Addresses of B.Y., Oct. 8, 1854)

    http://www.letusreason.org/LDS33.htm

    The question is who is the god of this world: Satan, Jesus, or Adam?

  47. 48 JBR
    May 10, 2012 at 3:51 am

    What is evident is that by the several authorities and “non-misleading prophets” that Mormonism claims to be privileged to have that manipulation by confusion of word definition is vital to keep the appearence of the truth while furthering the deception.

    It’s like a person who want to assure of himself of winning the roulette wheel he’ll “do all you can do” to classify who god is, how one can become one eventually
    ( of course it doesn’t hurt the chances with a wife or better still a harem).

    I have recorded exchanges between myself and other Mormons who admit that word meanings that Mormonism uses is different than what traditional Christians understand them to be.
    Words like “atonement”, “forgiveness”, “ressurection” …. so why would “god” be any different.

  48. 49 shematwater
    May 10, 2012 at 7:13 am

    “Water baptism is a sacrament, like the Lord’s Supper. Both are symbols of the reality of our salvation in Christ. Just as we do not literally eat Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper, we are not literally saved by water trickling over our skin.”

    I agree with this statement, though I wouldn’t call baptism a scrament myself.

    CHOOSE

    First, one must understand the meaning of the term world, and how it is used in various context. For instance, the term can refer to the physical planet of the Earth, which is how President Kimbal uses the term. However, it can also refer to the man-made cultures and governments that exist on the earth, which is how Paul uses the word.
    So, Christ is the God of this planet, the ruler of all creation; as shown in the fact that nature obeys him. Satan is the God of the world, the ruler of the man-made cultures and governments that cover the earth; as shown in the fact that they obey him.

    Now, unless we are able to varify the rest of the quotes you give, and read them in context, they become meaningless. As such I respectfully request that you post a link to where we can read them. I do not have the money to order copies myself, and I am not willing to just take your word for it.

    I will say that, if my memory serves me correctly, I have read the entire discourse from Brigham Young, given on October 8, 1854. If I am thinking of the same one you are quoting from, and I am confident that I am, the entire discourse was speculation and opinion, stated to be so from the beginning.
    As I recall Brigham Young opens the discourse by saying that all people speculate about things of eternity, and that he was no different. He then acknowledged that many people were curious as to what his speculations were, and that he was going to oblidge those people by giving them. This theme of speculation is repeated throughout the discourse.
    It should also be noted that in this discourse he still does not say that Adam is Elohim, and thus is not equating Adam with the God we worship.
    Opinion is not doctrine and never has been. To use speculation as your evidence is not to have evidnece.

  49. 50 shematwater
    May 10, 2012 at 7:29 am

    JBR

    What I find to be the funny part is that the definitions we use are actually more accurate uses of the term; while the rest of Christianity tries to comondeer the terms for thier private and restricted use, and get all upset when someone doesn’t let them.

    Let us look at some definitions. I will post first the definitions given at dictionary.com, then I will post the definition of the word as used by the LDS church. Please respond with your definition.
    Resurrection
    1. the act of rising from the dead.
    2. (initial capital letter) the rising of Christ after His death and burial.
    3. (initial capital letter) the rising of the dead on Judgment Day.
    4. the state of those risen from the dead.
    LDS: The resurrection consists in the uniting of a spirit body with a body of flesh and bones, never again to be divided. (taken from the Bible Dictionary)

    Note that the only difference between us and the dictionary is our declaration of permance.

    Forgiveness
    1. act of forgiving; state of being forgiven.
    (Let us look at forgive for a better understanding)
    1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
    2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
    3. to grant pardon to (a person).
    4. to cease to feel resentment against.
    5. to cancel an indebtedness or liability of.
    LDS: To forgive is a divine attribute. It is to pardon or excuse someone from blame for an offense or misdeed. (taken from study by topic)

    Again note the remarkable similarity between our use and the actual meaning of the word.

    Atonement
    1. satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.
    2. (sometimes initial capital letter) Theology . the doctrine concerning the reconciliation of God and humankind, especially as accomplished through the life, suffering, and death of Christ.
    LDS 1: to suffer the penalty for sins, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him or her to be reconciled to God. Jesus Christ was the only one capable of carrying out the Atonement for all mankind. (taken from study by topic)
    LDS 2: The word describes the setting “at one” of those who have been estranged, and denotes the reconciliation of man to God. (taken from Bible dictionary)

    Again note that our difinition is no different than that given in the dictionary.

    Actually, I really don’t think there is much difference in the meaning of words between us. The difference is in doctrine.
    For example: Forgiveness. We both agree that this word means a pardoning or canceling of some debt or offense. The difference comes in the doctrine of how this attained.

  50. 51 choosethechrist
    May 10, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    “So, Christ is the God of this planet, the ruler of all creation; as shown in the fact that nature obeys him. Satan is the God of the world, the ruler of the man-made cultures and governments that cover the earth; as shown in the fact that they obey him.” ~Shem

    So, it comes down to how we define “world”? Kimball didn’t say planet.

    Why the hymn if it were not true and believed?

    “We Believe in Our God”,
    We believe in our God the great Prince of His race, The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days, Our own Father Adam, earth’s Lord, as is plain, Who’ll counsel and fight for his children again. We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ…” (Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints p. 375) (Liverpool, 1856).

    *Here is one with an online link:

    Self-Government—Mysteries—Recreation and Amusements, Not in Themselves Sinful—Tithing—Adam, Our Father and Our God

    A Sermon by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9, 1852.

    Reported by G. D. Watt.^ Young (1852, p. 50) (statement given in the General Conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852). JOD pg 50

    http://jod.mrm.org/1/46#50

    Here is another:
    http://user.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/ag.htm

    Here are more:

    1.^ Young (1852, p. 50) (statement given in the General Conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852). JOD pg 50
    2.^ Roberts (1905, pp. 385–86) (Before the world was formed, the First Presidency “was first given to Adam….He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures.”); Quinn (1998, p. 234) (doctrine of Adam as Michael and as premortal First President cited as a precursor for the Adam–God doctrine).
    3.^ Roberts (1905, p. 387) (“Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.”).
    4.^ Quinn (1998, p. 234) (Adam’s assignment of the keys of the universe cited as a precursor for the Adam–God doctrine).
    5.^ Roberts (1908, p. 207); Quinn (1998, p. 234) (Adam-as-mediator doctrine cited as a precursor for the Adam–God doctrine).
    6.^ Larsen (1978, p. 8 (online ed.)) (God “once was a man like one of us and…God Himself, the Father of us all, once dwelled on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did in the flesh.”); Quinn (1998, p. 234) (citing teaching that God is an exalted man as a precursor for the Adam–God doctrine).
    7.^ Widmer (2000, p. 130); Collier (1999, pp. 228–42) (a Mormon fundamentalist author, arguing that Joseph Smith believed and taught the doctrine); Kraut (1972, pp. 80–97) (same); Christensen (1981, pp. 131–49) (same); Musser (1938, pp. 38, 43–46, 50–57) (same).
    8.^ Collier (1999, p. 229 fn. 12) (citing minutes of meeting of the Quorum of Twelve, 4 April 1860, in which it was recorded: “It was Joseph’s doctrine that Adam was God…God comes to earth and eats and partakes of fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, and if Joseph had it revealed, he was not told to reveal it.”); Collier (1999, p. 360) (citing Wilford Woodruff Journal of 4 September 1860, in which George Q. Cannon said “that Adam is our Father [and] is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print….”); Collier (1999, p. 367) (citing Wilford Woodruff Journal of 16 December 1867, stating that “President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel, & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this principle.”); Collier (1999, p. 233) (citing an 1877 reminiscence of Anson Call, who said he heard Joseph Smith say: “now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet [as] an immortalized being and brought his wife, Eve, with him, and by eating of the fruits of the earth became subject to death and decay and he became of the earth, earthly, was made mortal and subject to death.”).
    9.^ Widmer (2000, p. 130); Quinn (1998, p. 234) (“Young’s Adam–God teachings were an expansion of Joseph Smith’s sermons in 1839-44”); Bergera (1980, p. 48) (stating that there exists “no reliable evidence contemporary to Smith’s lifetime which lends support” to the view that Smith taught the Adam–God doctrine, and that Young “was not above inventing support for beliefs where none existed previously”).
    10.^ Bergera (1980, p. 48) (noting that Orson Pratt and contemporary historian T.B.H. Stenhouse both attributed the doctrine to Kimball).
    11.^ Bergera (1980, p. 41) (describing the Adam–God doctrine as “that Adam was at once the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this world, including Jesus Christ”).
    12.^ Bergera (1980, p. 15).
    13.^ Widmer (2000, pp. 131, 133) (describing Michael as a “lesser God in the Council of Gods”.); Kirkland (1984, p. 38) (noting that in Joseph Smith’s endowment ceremony, the gods involved in the creation were “Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael”, but unlike in modern Mormon theology, this “Jehovah” was not identified as Jesus).
    14.^ Widmer (2000, p. 131); Kirkland (1984, p. 38) (citing Joseph Smith’s statement in Larson (1978, pp. 202–03)).
    15.^ a b c d Widmer (2000, p. 131).
    16.^ Widmer (2000, p. 131) (stating that Adam was the spiritual father of “Jehovah and Lucifer”; since the advent of 20th century Mormon theology, mainstream Mormons have identified Jehovah as Jesus).
    17.^ Widmer (2000, p. 131); Bergera (1980, p. 15).
    18.^ Bergera (1980, p. 15) (citing Woodruff (1982, 6 May 1855))).
    19.^ Widmer (2000, p. 133).
    20.^ Kirkland (1984, p. 39).
    21.^ Kirkland (1984, pp. 39–41) (noting that in the late 19th century, several Mormon leaders who still adhered to the Adam–God doctrine began to adopt the modern Mormon belief that the Old Testament deity was Jesus).
    22.^ Widmer (2000, p. 131); Bergera (1980, p. 41) (describing the Adam–God doctrine as “that Adam was at once the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this world, including Jesus Christ”); Kirkland (1984, p. 39) (Adam “later begot Jesus, his firstborn spirit son, in the flesh”).
    23.^ Watt (1977).
    24.^ Young, Kimball & Richards (1853).
    25.^ a b Young (1852, p. 50).
    26.^ Young (1852, p. 50). The full text from the Journal of Discourses 1:51 reads as follows: “It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, “it is an immaterial substance!” What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever,that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.”
    27.^ Young (1852, pp. 50–51).
    28.^ Young (1852, p. 51). Watt’s transcript of the sermon was the only known stenographic recording; however, several other witnesses summarized it in their journals. These recountings vary somewhat in wording. For example, attendee Samuel Hollister Rogers wrote several days later, confirming that Young said that when Adam went to the Garden, he “brought his wife or one of his wives with him”, that “Adam was the only God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam.” 2 Brigham Young Addresses 12; Samuel Hollister Rogers Journal 145. Young’s bodyguard Hosea Stout wrote that night in his diary that “President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us.” 2 Diary of Hosea Stout 435 (April 9, 1852). Wilford Woodruff wrote that Young said God went to the Garden of Eden with “one of his wifes”, that “Adam is Michael or God And all the God that we have any thing to do with”, and “when the VIRGIN MARY was begotton with Child it was By the Father and in no other way ownly as we were begotton.” 4 Journal of Wilford Woodruff 127-130, April 9, 1852.
    29.^ Young (1852, p. 51).
    30.^ Journal of Wilford Woodruff, February 19, 1854.
    31.^ Journal of Joseph L. Robinson, October 6, 1854.
    32.^ Minutes of the General Conference, Deseret News, October 12, 1853.
    33.^ Journal of Joseph Lee Robinson, October 6, 1854. See also Diary of Thomas D. Brown, October 6, 1854, pp. 87-88 (“There are Lords many and there are Gods many, & the Father of our Spirits is the Father of Jesus Christ: He is the Father of Jesus Christ, Spirit & Body and he is the beginner of the bodies of all men”); John Pulsipher Papers, Mss 1041, p. 35-37, BYU Special Collections (“There are Lords many & Gods many But the God that we have to account to, is the father of our Spirits—Adam.”).
    34.^ JD 4:215
    35.^ JD 4:217.
    36.^ Thomas Bullock, Minutes of the LDS General Conference Deseret News, April 17, 1852, page 2
    37.^ Journal of Wilford Woodruff, April 10, 1852.
    38.^ Franklin D. Richards, reported in “MInutes of the Special General Council”, Millennial Star 16:534, 26 August 1854.
    39.^ Journal of Discourses 4:1
    40.^ “Sons of Michael, He Approaches”; hymn 51.
    41.^ Journal of Thomas Evans Jeremy Sr., September 30, 1852 (“Also he did not believe that Father Adam had flesh and bones, when he came to the garden of Eden, but he and his wife Eve were spirits, and that God formed their bodies out of the dust of the ground, and the (sic) became a living souls. He also said that he believed that Jesus Christ and Adam are brothers in the Spirit, and that Adam is not the God that he is praying unto.”). See generally, Bergera 1980.
    42.^ Journal of William Clayton, October 3, 1852.
    43.^ Orson Pratt (March, October 1853), “The Pre-Existence of Man”, The Seer, 1:3, 158–59:.
    44.^ a b id.
    45.^ Stephen E. Robinson, “The Apocalypse of Adam”, BYU Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2, p. 131 (“this was the interpretation of Brigham Young’s statement advocated in 1853 by Samuel W. Richards, who, as editor of the Millennial Star and President of the Church in the British Isles, first published President Young’s initial sermon on the subject (Millennial Star, December 10, 1853).; arguing that Franklin D. Richards, who took Samuel W. Richards place also promoted this interpretation).
    46.^ Quoted from Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young. Watt, G.D., transcriber, October 8, 1861, with minor misspellings corrected.
    47.^ Collier (1999, p. 229 fn. 12) (citing minutes of meeting of the Quorum of Twelve, 4 April 1860, in which it was recorded: “It was Joseph’s doctrine that Adam was God…God comes to earth and eats and partakes of fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, and if Joseph had it revealed, he was not told to reveal it.”). Collier (1999, p. 360) (citing Wilford Woodruff Journal of 4 September 1860, in which George Q. Cannon said “that Adam is our Father [and] is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print….”). Collier (1999, p. 367) (citing Wilford Woodruff Journal of 16 December 1867, stating that “President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel, & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this principle.”)
    48.^ Brigham Young (August 31, 1863), Journal of Discourses 16:160.
    49.^ a b Letter to the Honorable A. Saxey, Provo, Utah; CHO/d1325/Bk4/fd1.
    50.^ Van Hale, “What About the Adam-God Theory?,” Mormon Miscellaneous response series #3
    51.^ Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, Vol II:740-741, June 11, 1892 (In Typescript pp 43-44). This does not mean that Adam is God the Father, it only means that Adam was created as a perfect and immortal human being. Obviously he cannot be creator and created being at the same time. See also Letter of Bishop Edward Bunker, Jr to Joseph F. Smith, February 9, 1902.
    52.^ Journal of J. D. T. McAllister, p. 99; BYU, Mor/M270.1/m/v.6, June 11, 1892.
    53.^ Brigham Young, Jr. Journal, April 4, 1897-February 2, 1899, Vol 30:107; CHO/Ms/f/326, Dec 16th 1897.
    54.^ See for example the Proceedings of the First Sunday School Convention, November 28, 1898; Letter to Bishop Edward Bunker, feb 27, 1902; Messages of the First Presidency, Vol 4:199-206; Journal of Thomas A. Clawson, 1912-1917, pp 69-70, April 8, 1912; Deseret News, B. H. Roberts, July 23, 1921; Utah Genealogical Magazine, Joseph Fielding Smith, pp 146-151, Oct 1930; Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 1:18, 76-77, 92, 1954
    55.^ Charles W. Penrose, “Our Father Adam”, Improvement Era (September 1902): 873. GospeLink (http://gospelink.com/library/browse?cat_id=6) reprinted in Charles W. Penrose, “Our Father Adam”, Millennial Star (11 December 1902): 785–90. (this paragraph from p. 789).
    56.^ Conference Report, p. 115 (October 1–3, 1976)
    57.^ Spencer W. Kimball, Own Liahona,” Ensign, Nov. 1976, p. 77.
    58.^ by Elden Watson.
    59.^ BYU Devotional, June 1, 1980. This is what McConkie said in the audio recording of this sermon. The print version has subsequently been changed to “has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it.” Compare PDF text with MP3 audio at 26:48:[1].
    60.^ Musser, Joseph W. Michael, Our Father and Our God. Salt Lake City: Truth Publishing Company, 1963.

    More: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm

  51. 52 shematwater
    May 11, 2012 at 1:50 am

    CHOOSE

    Thank you.

    I would point out that nothing you cite teaches that Adam is God, or the Great Elohim which we worship. He is refered to as our father (as he is the father of all men of this earth) and our God (as he does stand as the patriarch of this earth, and will rule this earth in the eternities, under Christ). But he is never said to be the father of Christ, or the Great Elohim or Head of the Gods.
    It seems that you have a small trouble in considering the nature and heirarchy of the gods in the eternal worlds. You seem to blend the idea of only one God with this heirarchy, and thus end with a confused mess.

    Note that in the first discourse you cite Brigham Young makes it clear that Adam is Michael, not the Great Elohim, whom we worship.

  52. 53 joshtried
    May 11, 2012 at 6:18 am

    He would be the father of Christ in the sense that through Adam came all men. He is the father of all mankind, and eve is the mother. This isnt a new concept. It is apparent this is now a twisted concept.

  53. 54 Kent
    May 11, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Adam is not Michael as Adam did not exist until God created him out of the dust of the ground.

    Genesis 2:7

    7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

    Ironic that even the Mormon Book of Moses from the Pearl of Great Price agrees that God formed man out of the dust of the ground.

    Moses 3:7

    7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth

    So if Adam was Michael was he first turned into dust and then formed into the first flesh upon the earth?

    It sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? Of course it does but Brigham Young saying Adam was Michael is equally absurd and it is a complete contradiction to what the Bible says and, ironcially, it is also a contradiction to what the Mormon Book of Moses says as well.

    Just stick with the Bible folks as your only source and you can avoid contradictions that occur in Mormon teachings where the Pearl of Great Price agrees with the Bible, at least those parts copied from the Bible, while Brigham Young and other Mormon sources teach something completely different.

    Christians here, isn’t it obvious that Adam couldn’t have been Michael and isn’t it obvious there are contradictions between various Mormon teachings on the subject?

  54. 55 Kent
    May 11, 2012 at 9:52 am

    Mormons, if Brigham Young says Adam is Michael and the ceremony in your temple says that he is Michael, but that he had his memory erased when was put into the garden, but elsewhere Brigham Young is saying that Adam is God (Adam God doctrine) that, as I said, the various teachings contradict each other?

    Because, even if Young was saying Adam was Michael this still contradicts that the Bible says Adam was created from the dust of the ground, It contradicts the Mormon Book of Moses that says Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, and it even contradicts the Mormon Book of Abraham that also says, in this case though, that the Gods (not God) created Adam out of the dust of the ground. which is still another contradtiction as did God create Adam out of the dust of the ground or did the Gods create him out of the dust of the ground?

    Genesis 2:7

    7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

    Moses 3:7

    7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth

    Abraham 5:7

    7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

    Again, if Adam is Michael, was he first turned into dust and then formed into Adam?

    Folks, it is just makes sense to just go by the Bible and avoid the contraditions.

  55. 56 joshtried
    May 11, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Kent, “let US make man in OUR image.” How are you missing this?

    Second, just because the body was created out of dust does not mean there was any life in the creation. The bible clearly states the opposite. It does not state what the breathe of life is, other than it is life. It is not outside of Gods power to place the spirit of a living thing into a creation of lifelessness. By saying this is not possible, you again limit the abilities of God.

  56. 57 joshtried
    May 11, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Kent, isnt it obvious that Christ is not God when he is speaking to God the father and says “not my will but thine be done”??????

  57. 58 choosethechrist
    May 11, 2012 at 12:13 pm

    “We Believe in Our God”,
    We believe in our God the great Prince of His race, The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days, Our own Father Adam, earth’s Lord, as is plain, Who’ll counsel and fight for his children again. We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ…” (Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints p. 375) (Liverpool, 1856).

    This sure looks like worship to me which makes me wonder why The Archangel Michael and Jesus Christ would be worshipped in the past, but Jesus Christ is not worshipped today? Now we have the LDS stating that the Adam God doctrine does not count because BY never said that Adam=Elohim or the God who they actually worship.

    This hymn is also perlexing:

    Michael, Is the Eternal Father

    Sons of Michael, he approaches!
    Rise; the Eternal Father greet;
    Bow, ye thousands, low before him;
    Minister before his feet;
    Hail the Patriarch’s reign,
    ‘Stablished now o’er sea and main!

    – Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 11th edition, 1856, by Franklin D. Richards, Apostle, p. 375; online at http://www.ldshistory.net/adam-god/ag2.html

    Michael=the Eternal Father? “Bow, ye thousands, low before him;” How is this not worship?

    If I am understanding this correctly, BY taught that God=Elohim, Jesus=Jehova, Holy Ghost=The Archangel Michael who came to this Earth and became Adam and brought ONE of his wives with him. All are gods, but only Elohim is worshipped. So, basically it must all come down to how we define “worship” and singing hymns is not worship for the LDS.

    My 2 cents on all of this is that the LDS emphasis on only worshipping Elohim has evolved out of taking heat for being a religious system with multiple gods which is contrary to Christianity. The LDS have to then try and wiggle out of this one by claiming that only Elohim aka God (BIG G GOD) is who they worship.

  58. 59 choosethechrist
    May 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    Kent, I thought you would find this one interesting:

    Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”

    – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 3, pp. 319-320; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/Vol_03/refJDvol3-47.html

    Adam was made from the dust of AN Earth, but NOT from the dust of THIS Earth?
    Adam helped MAKE this world?
    Adam was made from the dust of another Earth, but was made as you and I are made? This one has me scratching my head. Are LDS spirit babies made out of dust or from spritual procreation?

  59. 60 choosethechrist
    May 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revleaed to me – namely that Adam is our father and God – I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who cold tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.”

    – Prophet Brigham Young, Deseret News, v. 22, no. 308, June 8, 1873; online at http://www.helpingmormons.org/The_Prophets_Have_Spoken.htm

    “namely that Adam is our father and God”

    Do the LDS really know who procreated them?

    “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.”

    – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 51; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-10.html

    “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.”

    – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 51; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-10.html

    Now we have BY refering to Adam as “our Father in Heaven”? Guess we need to define Father in Heaven as well?

  60. 61 choosethechrist
    May 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    “I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth – the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted.”

    – Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 1; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/Vol_04/refJDvol4-1.html

    Is Jesus the God of this world or is Adam?

    and now we have it stated that Elohim is not the father of Jesus, but Adam is the father of Jesus?

    The first man, Adam sent his own SON to redeem the world?

    Who is the Father of Jesus? Elohim or Adam? Or do we have to have Adam=Elohim in order for all of this to work?

  61. 62 choosethechrist
    May 11, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    “The Lord told me that Jesus Christ was the son of Adam.”

    – Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Heber C. Kimball, v. 20, p. 17; see also Deseret News, March 11, 1857; online at http://www.ldshistory.net/adam-god/ag2.html

    ?????

  62. 63 choosethechrist
    May 11, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    “The doctrine preached by Pres. Young for a few years back, wherein he says that Adam is our God – the God we worship – that most of the people believe this – some believe it because the President says so – others because they can find testimony in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.”

    – Elder Abraham B. Smoot, “Minutes of the School of the Prophets,” pp. 37-42, June 8, 1868; online at http://www.ldshistory.net/adam-god/ag3.html

    “Adam is our God – the God we worship”?

    Mormon Apostle and leading apologist Bruce McConkie states: “Three separate personages—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—comprise the Godhead…As each of these persons is a God, it is evident from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us…these three are the only Gods we worship” (Mormon Doctrine, p.576-577).

    So, really all of these seperate Gods are worshipped in Mormonism and it is clear that Adam was worshipped as God.

    They are worshipping more than one God/Elohim.

  63. 64 choosethechrist
    May 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    “… every Knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that he [Adam] is the God of the whole earth. Then will the words of the Prophet Brigham, when speaking of Adam, be fully realized…”

    – Millennial Star, v. 17, p. 195; online at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm

    This one, I will NEVER get over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Knees will be bowing and tongues will be confessing, but we all know it will be the name of Jesus and not Adam.

    Mormons, don’t let it be too late!

  64. 65 shematwater
    May 11, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    JOSH

    I think it is time to leave the issue alone. Choose and Kent don’t have any desire to actually learn, only to ridicule and find anything they can possibly latch onto to use against us, whether they actually understand it or not.

    I think it is sufficient to say the Adam is Michael, who lived as a spirit before his body was created by God and his spirit was placed in it (the breath of life). He is the great progenitor of our race, the Ancient of Days, and just as Daniel prophecied, all the saints will honor him as such and it is through him that all things are done on this Earth, for he is the ruler of it.
    Christ, the son of the Eternal Elohim, rules over all the earths created by his Father, and thus Adam rules this earth under his direction. As Christ is part of the human family of this planet he is descended from Adam, and can thus rgihtly be called his son.

    Beyond this is merely speculation, which even Brigham Young admitted, and refused to take action against those who disagreed (as in the case of Orson Pratt) and thus is not binding on us in any way, and was never meant to be. Let the world rail against God’s servants all they want, but in the end God will justify his prophets and condemn those who raised their voices in opposition.

    CHOOSE

    Technically, we worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
    From Dictionary.com
    Worship
    1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.
    2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.
    3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.
    4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.

    We give all three honor and homage, holding them all in adoring reverence and regard.

    The difference is that we do not pray to all of them, but only to the Father. He is the ruler, the Head of the Gods. We take our petitions to Him, for He is the great authority in Heaven, and it is by His will that all things are done. Even Christ acknowledged his power when he said “Not my will, but thine be done.” Paul also acknowledged the pre-emminance of the Father when he stated that “But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.” (1 Corinthians 15: 27)
    So, we say that we worship the Father in the name of the Son.

  65. 66 Kent
    May 11, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    Shem, I am not here to ridulcule and I am not here to learn from you, we are not at a Mormon web site! I am here to show why I question the Mormon faith and to encourage Mormons to ask the same questions in hope that they leave the Mormon faith. After all, this is what this blog is for!

    I am also not here to win some debate and while I read what you folks post, you never really explain or put to rest the contradictions I see in your church’s teachings.

    Any Mormons ever wonder why Mormons are continuely having to explain bizarre teachings like Brigham Young’s Adam God doctrine or his statement that white people, who he calls the chosen seed, who mix with black people are to be put to death on the spot, under the law of God, and that this will always be so?

    Regarding race mixers, again, this is what Young said:

    Brigham Young, “The Persecutions of the Saints, etc.,” (8 March 1863) Journal of Discourses 10:111

    “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

    Could it be that men like Young really were not prophets of God at all?

    You keep saying we don’t get your doctrine right but is it your doctrine that i can live in the mansion without being temple worthy by doing things like tithing to your church, following a bunch of ordinances, and by accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God?

    Also, is it your doctrine that if I am not worthy enough to be in the presence of God when I die, that I will have my part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone and that there is no such place as even the telestial kingdom for me to go to if I don’t make it and that I only have this lifetime to get it right?

    In addition, is it your doctrine that I will live in the mansion where God is because I believe with all my heart that Jesus is Lord, that He died in my place to pay the penalty for all my sins, a sinner who cannot ever save myself, who rose again on the third day, and because of what He did and by His grace I am worthy in God’s eyes to be there because He is worthy and is it your doctrine that saved=eternal life but without ever being able to become a god myself?

    Finally, is it your doctrine that Jesus isn’t the spirit brother of Satan whose salvation plan was accepted over His brother Satan’s plan who rebelled and took a third of the spirit children with him that in fact Jesus has always been God, even when He walked this earth as God with us (Emmanuel) to be the perfect sacrfice for the whole world’s sins?

    Shem, you would agree that the last four paragraphs above are our doctrine and not your doctrine wouldn’t you?

    So, you do get what our doctrine is, correct? If so, then we have gotten your doctrine right as it isn’t our doctrine.

  66. 67 joshtried
    May 11, 2012 at 8:27 pm

    Kent. Honestly, if you had been paying a bit of attention, you would have learned by now that most of what is posted is anomalous. Yes, there are many things that people outside of the LDS faith do not fully understand. Since, as you put it “I am not here to learn from you, I am also not here to win some debate and while I read what you folks post, you never really explain or put to rest the contradictions I see in your church’s teachings” then i have no reason to continue answering these questions. I dont mean this as an “oh you hurt my feelings”, i mean this is what it is. You have decided that absolutely no explanation, no matter how correct, will ever be accepted by you. Have a great day.

  67. 68 joshtried
    May 11, 2012 at 9:19 pm

    Going back to the “Melchizedek” priesthood: in Revelations we see people being resurrected and being priests unto God…. “Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ” (Rev 20). How is it that people are resurrected as priests if the priesthood of Aaron is lost upon death? someone else posted above
    Hebrews 7:23 Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24 but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.
    What priesthood then do they have in the resurrection? Notice also that it is HE that is blessed in the first resurrection, not they, and not she, to be priests of God and of Christ.

  68. 69 shematwater
    May 11, 2012 at 9:45 pm

    KENT

    “If so, then we have gotten your doctrine right as it isn’t our doctrine.”

    No you don’t. All you have is that our doctrine is different than yours. This does not mean you understand what our doctrine is. After all the Buddhists doctrine is not yours, but it is not ours either.

    However, since you have made it clear that you have no desire to actually know our doctrine, there is no point in explaining it to you. On this I have to agree with Josh. You prefer to keep your misunderstanding and false conceptions, and hope that others will not notice them to be such.

  69. 70 Kent
    May 12, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    Shem and Josh, so you acknwoledge that regarding the doctrine of salvation that you believe a different doctrine, a different gospel that, to you, I can’t ever be in the mansions where God is if I am not temple worthy, if I don’t tithe to your church, I don’t follow a bunch of oridanances, etc.

    I got news for you, no one is worthy not even the bishops who sit in judgement who decide if you are worthy enough to even enter your temple and no, they can’t read your hearts as no one can see our hearts except for God.

    1 Kings 8:39

    39 then hear in heaven Your dwelling place, and forgive, and act, and give to everyone according to all his ways, whose heart You know (for You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men)

    So one of of us believes a false gospel which would makes us unbelievers who are to be accursed, condemned, shall not see life, who the wrath of God abides upon, and who have our part in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone

    One of the most dangerous doctrines is that unbelievers will have even any level of glory. The following passages show that unbelievers don’t have any glory after they leave this earth. If they are describing the telestial kingdom that sure isn’t a place that is better than anything here on earth.

    Galatians 1:8-9

    8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

    John 3:18

    18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

    John 3:36

    36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

    Revelation 21:8

    8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

  70. 71 Kent
    May 12, 2012 at 7:00 pm

    Add on to my last post, no one is worthy not me, not Josh, not Shem, not Mark, not Choose, not JBR, not the Mormon bishops, or, for that matter, no one, except for Christ, who has ever walked this earth and no one will ever be worthy

    But the good news is that Jesus is worthy and God sees His worthiness in us if we put our complete faith in who He is and what He alone did by dying on the cross in our place to take our penalty for all our sins on Himself and by His rising again on the third day. If we believe, God will not see our unworthiness ever again.

    Any Mormons here who are questioning what you are being taught, test all things using the Bible as your source, and hold fast to what is good.

    Thessalonians 5:21

    21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

    I, myself, tested by the Bible if Adam could have possibly matched up to various Mormon creation accounts, some of which, but not all of them, don’t match up to the Bible.

    So if Adam was Michael, to match that up with the the account in Genesis, God would have had to turn him into dust first and then form him out of that dust and then breath into his nostrils the breath of life to make him a living being.

    But if Adam was our Father in heaven, God would have had to turn himself into dust and then form himself from the dust of the ground and then breath life into his own nostrils to make himself a living being!

    Brigham Young’s account below isn’t part of the Mormon creation story? Well isn’t it Mormon doctrine that Young was a prophet and that when he said he was speaking doctrine, as he does so directly below, he was supposed to be speaking for God? The other possiblity is that Young wasn’t a prophet at all and he wasn’t speaking for God at all.

    “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.”

    – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 51; online at http://journals.mormonfundamentalism.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-10.html

    It is just makes sense to just follow the Bible, as especially involving Adam’s creation, Adam didn’t exist until God created him out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.

    So Adam was not Michael and of course he wasn’t our father in heaven, Adam was just Adam and no one else.

    Genesis 2:7

    7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

  71. 72 shematwater
    May 13, 2012 at 2:16 am

    Once again, the quote that seems to be the favorite on this thread was misquoted, and should read “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that walked with Adam in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”

    I believe this is the third or fourth time on this blog that I have posted this, but people still want to ignore this fact.

    As to Kent’s little reasoning on Adam and the creation, he has less logic and understanding than we do. It fits perfectly with the creation story to say that Adam’s body was formed form the dust, and that the breath of life is a reference to the spirit that was Michael in the pre-existence, that entered that created body, as Genesis states.

    “Add on to my last post, no one is worthy not me, not Josh, not Shem, not Mark, not Choose, not JBR, not the Mormon bishops, or, for that matter, no one, except for Christ, who has ever walked this earth and no one will ever be worthy”

    I think Kent is confusing the term perfection with worthy here. If we substitute perfect every time worthy occurs than he has hit it on the money.


Comments are currently closed.

May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Blog Stats

  • 182,188 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 998 other followers


%d bloggers like this: