Flyonthewall

This is not different than what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches nothing about the Trinity. The Trinity is a philisophical concept made up by men to attempt to understand the nature of G_d. The Bible teaches G_d the Father, and His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, each one different from the other yet one in purpose. Then what does all this "joint heirs with Christ" mean?Jesus is G_d because of His "nature", correct? Jesus became man, yet still is G_d. If the "nature" of man is evil or sinful, then is Jesus less than G_d? Does this make Him any less? No. I submit to you that the nature of mortal man is not the nature of spiritual man. Spiritual man is of the same "nature" or "essence" of G_d, because we are His spirit children, as is mentioned in the Bible. It is you who does not understand what mormons believe. Mosiah 5 "8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives." The Bible says "faith without works is dead". We believe that works alone will not avail us anything. Works alone are not sufficient. It is by the Atonement of Christ that salvation comes, after all we can do. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. ... 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. I think this spells it out quite well. There are many definitions of Salvation in the LDS faith. Salvation from physical death is but one. Here are other definitions:LDS.org - Topic Definition - Salvation understood. understood. These details are significant to us. They offer clarity to the whole scheme of things. Not fully understanding you side of things, I'm not sure what you mean by "grave importance". I know these points don't line up with your beliefs, but we never claimed they did. I am glad to have them though.

This is where we believe the Bible is not clear, and that this concept has been clarified with additional scripture and living prophets. The Bible definately alluded to other gods, and not just idols. The incident in John 10 outlines this.30 I and my Father are aone. 31 Then the Jews took up astones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 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? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. Jesus claims to be the son of G_d, and when the Jews were about to stone him, He brings it to their attention that the scriptures state that "ye are gods", and if "ye are gods", why is it blasphemous to state that I am the Son of G_d? This is a long article but it outlines most of your disagreements fairly well: Restoring the Ancient Church, Chapter 3

Right back at ya. I realize you have your stance on what the nature of G_d is, and I have mine. You will claim that I am not reading the scriptures in context, and I will say the same about you. You have scriptures to back up your stance, and I have scriptures to back up my stance. But man can be like G_d:Romans 8 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. I we can be heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ, and are glorified together, what does that tell you? I know what it tells me. And as far as I am concerned that is correct. G_d has always been my G_d, will always be my G_d, and has never been anything less. This might get sticky for you. There is G_d the Father, and then His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of G_d. G_d the Father is Jesus Christ's Father and G_d. Jesus Christ subordinated His will to that of the Father.John 20: 17 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. See above. We use the same terminology though. What comes before eternity? What comes after? These are infinite concepts that we just can't fully grasp right now. So I would agree, that Jesus has been eternally G_d.

You misunderstand the concept of oneness. I think Ztodd referred you to a wonderful article outlining the oneness of the Godhead. Aside from that, the Bible refers to a plurality of gods, but alas most do not recognize this. Ps. 136: 2, Ps. 82: 6, Ex. 15: 11, Joshua 22:22, Deut. 10: 17, 1 Corinthians 8:5 to name just a few. G_d is a spirit, I am a spirit, you are a spirit. These mortal bodies we have now merely house our spirits. Being a spirit, does not preclude anyone from having a body. The Bible teaches we need to worship G_d in spirit and truth, to worship Him in spirit, we do not abandon our body. The Holy Ghost, the 3rd member of the Godhead is a personage of spirit. G_d the Father, and Jesus Christ, have bodies, so they cannot be inside of us. However, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, and can dwell within us. Since the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead, and one in purpose with the Father and Son, then it can be stated that G_d can dwell in our heart. No conflict here. No conflict here. The Son of G_d, Jesus Christ is the Word by which the Father spoke and the world was created. The Son was the Creator under the direction of the Father, and all those who helped in the creation were gods. We have one G_d, G_d the Father, there is also the Lord G_d, Jesus Christ, and there is also G_d the Spirit, the Holy Ghost, who are one in purpose. Gen. 20: 12 (12, 16). 12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife. Not a lie. The Gospel does not change, but what the Lord has us do can change. I can think of a few things the G_d commanded us(man) to do, then revoked the command. Law of Burnt Offering, Law of Moses, Law of Circumcision, don't preach to the gentiles - preach to the gentiles... I am not sure how you are getting no Pre-mortal existance of man in the passages you cite. Our physical mortal bodies were created by G_d for this earth life. Has nothing to do with our spirits dwelling with G_d before we came here. Polygamy is condemned when the Lord does not command it. David and Solomon went after wives that were not of the House of Israel, which the Lord had commanded not to be done. You forgot to include Jacob 2:30: 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. I am sure there are, but I can cherry pick verses in the Bible that contradict each other. It's just a matter of reading in context. I can point you to the source, but it would be from a "pro-mormon" website, and I know you have an issue with that. Oh well, here it is: The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century We believe the BofM, D&C, and PofGP have restored the plain and precious truths that are missing. Since the books that are lost, are lost, we don't know exactly what is contained in them, but we have the additional scriptures that go hand in hand with the Bible, that fill in and clarify the teachings of the Bible. Here are a list of missing scriptures that the Bible referrs to but does not contain: Exodus:24:7.........Book of the Covenant Numbers 21:14.......Book of Wars of the Lord Joshua 10:13........The Book of Jasher 1-Kings 11:41.......Book of the Acts of Solomon 1-Chronicles 29:29..Books of Nathan and Gad 2-Chronicles 9:29...Prophecy of Ahijah and visions of Iddo 2-Chronicles 20:34..Book of Jehu 2-Chronicles 26:22..Acts of Uzziah 2-Chronicles 33:19..Sayings of the Seers 1-Corinthians 5:9...An earlier epistle of Paul to the Corinthians Ephesians 3:3.......Another epistle of Paul to the Ephesians Colossians 4:16.....An epistle of Paul from Loadicea Jude 3..............Former epistle of Jude Jude 14.............Prophecies of Enoch

Can you give an example. I know of no teachings in the D&C, or PofGP, that contradict anything in the BofM. Here is my take on this. After the deaths of the original Apostles and before the Nicene creed, there were many different beliefs about the gospel and its doctrine. After the creed was established, there were many who were left on the outside looking in. These were either forced to give up their established beliefs, or were persecuted. When it came time to gather religious texts, there was a natural tendency to make the texts fit with the creed. Some things were taken out, and others had the meanings changed. All this was done so that the biblical writings would fit the belief that was established. You make some very good points here and worth taking a look at. In the case with the Book of Mormon, translating it from english to any other language, there was no taking things out to make it fit doctrines. Great care was taken to make sure the language it was translated into kept the same meanings that were conveyed in english. Hopefully others will chip in here, because I am not that familiar with the how the BofM was translated to other languages, but that's how I see it. The Book of Mormon states that it is the "most correct book". This does not say "only correct book", or "100% correct book". This is because men wrote it and men translated it. Yes, it was translated with the power of G_d, but anytime man is put into the process, errors can creep in. In the case of the Book of Mormon, errors were kept to a minimum because of the influence of G_d in the translation process.

And the Mulekites

I stated in my post that this theory was not archeologically sound. I should have said that it is not geologically sound. I can only guess as to the time frame, but it is not going to fit in with any geology that I know of.

Matthew 7 6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 13 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. These two scriptures show that there are sacred teachings that are not meant for "unbelievers" or those who are not ready to hear them. Yes, Jesus spoke openly, but did not reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to just anybody.

I have a feeling this will come down to your interpretation and our interpretation of Biblical scripture. You will quote a biblical verse and say it means 'X', and we will say that same verse means 'Y'. We are very interested in the truth, and we feel we have a good handle on that. If you would like to take it one concept at a time, then let's talk. So far, the shotgun approach you have taken gets unweildy and does not allow for good dialogue. Pick a concept, any concept, and lets see what we can converse about.

It sounds like you are in "School of the Pundits", which is informational. It's the "LDS Dialogue and Discussion" that you may need to aquire a taste for.

I agree with Ray:I would suggest that you peek in there for a while to get the feel of the environment, and then make up your mind as to whether it is your type of board. It isn't everyone's "cup of herbal tea".

How interesting that you state that all the Mormon sources to your "questions" are pro-mormon. What exactly did you expect? It should be no surprise that we use pro-mormon sources in the same way you use "anti-mormon" sources for your questions. You have been very adept in citing "anti-mormon" web-sites and sources, you could very well have used the same amount of effort going to "pro-mormon" sources to get the rebuttals yourself. They can be located on the FAIRLDS.org site, FARMS.com site and lds.org website. Everything, and I mean everything, you have cited and questioned has already answered on one of these sites I uh um...cited.(double/triple speak with the site/cite) Those of us on this board have answered your questions and issues, with the assumption they were sincere. We did not expect you to agree with the answers, but at least acknowledge that we did. We are not trying to convince you of anything, we are just answering your questions. If you just want to tell us how wrong we are, then you are at the wrong site for that, try the Apologetics site. If, however, you are sincere about learning what we believe and why we believe it, come up with your own questions, don't throw the "anti-morom" website stuff around, and we will be more than happy to answer your questoins.

Good question! There are a lot of theories and speculation out there, even within the LDS community. Some are more archeologically sound than others, but there are a lot to choose from, so if you want to come up with your own, that's okay too. I will present one, and others will present other theories or expand upon it. To start with let me say, I have no definitive explaination, but here is what I can remember Cleon Skousen said in the book The First Two Thousand Years. There was just one land mass before the flood. The garden of Eden was supposedly in Missouri, so Noah and his family was somewhere in the vicinity. When the flood happened, the ark started on what was to be the American continent, and floated to what was going to be Mt. Ararat. When the flood receded, Noah and family spread out over the land again. I don't know how many years afterward, but there was a person named Peleg, whose name means "the land was divided". During this person's life is when the book says(asserts) the one land mass was divided into separate land masses, and North and South America broke off and drifted away, along with the rest of the world(continents, islands and what have you). Those who were on what was to be different continents stayed there. Others ventured out and found the isles of the sea. Now this is from memory so I could be off a bit on what the book states but it is close. This, however, is not very archeologically sound, and many will poo-pah this away.

Sounds promising. I hope to hear more about it's successfull uses in the near future!

In the short time I have been on MADB, I have definately seen the same things brought up as new, time and again. That is when things can get...vigorous. This forum is a bit more cordial.

They have several forums there. One for introductions(no debate), one for member blogs(connected to blogs by individual posters), one for Pundits (anyone can view, but post by invitation only), one for discussion, (where most of the discussion and debate goes on), and one for socializing(for congenial discussion, not necessarily church oriented). Sounds like you went to the School of the Pundits. I see that as for the super braniacs, but interesting as far as I can follow it.

It's a more rough an tumble place, but I have learned a lot, not only about my own religion, but about the faith of others.

It is the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board. I can get there this morning Take a look Skalenfehl http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showforum=11

Here is a good reference: Do We Have the Potential to become Like God? Here are some good references:Cherry-Picking in the Orchard of God's Word What do Latter-day Saints mean when they say that God was once a man? Here is a good reference for you:http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Did_God_have_Sex_with_Mary.pdf Here is a good article to read: Church Publications (HTML) Here is a good article to read: Church Publications (HTML) Another good read: Church Publications (HTML) A good article: Gospel Link Here is a good reference: Is the Bible Complete and Inerrant?The Corruption of Scripture in the Second Century Another good read: Mormonism 201: Chapter 6

It was definately at General Conference, but he may have repeated it in this interview, or may have repeated this statement from the interview in General Conference.

I remember the quote, and it was within the last 3 or 4 years at general conference. I too, have been trying to find it on lds.org, but I guess I'm not searching on the right phrase or words. I hope someone knows which one it is and can post the reference.

I would have to say: "we don't know". The way we make babies here on earht, pertains to the physical body. We know that spirits are intelligences and are eternal, so I don't think there will be a gestational period. Anything I can say is just speculation. I have even heard that it may be some sort of a priesthood ordinance. Again, all guesses.

True, there have been no "Welcome to Zarahemla" signs found. While it is true that BYU Archeological students and faculty will call themselves BofM archeologists, the greater archeological world will not adhere to that, and that is fine with me. There has been no definitave evidence that relates to the BofM found as of yet. But I do not base my faith in archeology. Every year there are more and more things discovered that bring us closer.20 years of archeology, and that being back in 1969, so now it would be 60 years of archeology. Well let's compare BofM archeology with bliblical...Places in the Bible have been constantly inhabited, and known about, and with records kept from, well, biblical times. Places in the Book of Mormon have not been continuosly known about, and the records, most of them, were destroyed by the european conquerors when they came. There have been, litereally, thousands of years of access to bible archeological knowledge, and there are still some places that have not been discovered yet. The bible lands are dry and arid, perfect for preserving archeological evidence. On the flip side of that, mesoamerican archeology has only been around for 100 years if even that. Central and South America is very humid and wet, not at all conducive for preserving archeological evidence. Even metal will rust and decay very fast, not to mention plants overrunning sites very quickly. The BofM timetable runs out around 400 AD, so there have been many centuries for other civilizations to take over cities and build on top of them, effectively destroying the previous civilization's evidence. I would say forget about all the evidence, read the book and pray with a sincere heart to know whether or not it is true. Basically, if you start out trying to prove it is false, you will find what you are looking for. When we focus too much on one thing, we will miss others that are going on right under our noses.Whew! you might want to break up your questions into different threads. I had to split up my response because it wouldn't fit on the same page

Your welcome! There are a lot. This is not as black and white as it seems. While the Bible started out as writings from prophets, but they were translated into different languages by men. If you have ever studied a foreign language, you will know that there are some words that carry a lot more meaning to them than a single word in english. We do believe that by and large the Bible is true and accurate, but there are things contained in there that need clarificaiton. This is why several different people can read the same passages and come up with different interpretations. I will answer what I can, but alas, I don't have all the answers either. What you will find in the LDS church is a wide variety of opinion and commentary. While I would agree that LDS scholars have an academic knowledge, I do not look to them to define what the church believes. I look the the church leadership. Here is a link to an article in one of the church magazines that describes how we view the Bible: LDS.org - Ensign Article - I Have a Question Notice he states that it is the "most" correct book, not "only". The implications are for the doctrinal aspects, not of grammar, punctuation and spelling. As a matter of fact, it was dictated without punctuation, chapter headings, or even book segments. All those had to be added in later to make it more readable. This was his take on an outake from someone's journal that was not even part of the process of translating the Book of Mormon. There are many references to the process by those who did help out in the process, and each wrote about it from a different point of view, however, they all agree that it was translated by the gift and power of G_d. One thing is for certain, is that Joseph Smith dictated it to another, and once the translation process was done it was taken to a printer and had to be typeset by others. There was a chain from G_d to Joseph to a scribe to the printers, and each time a person was involved, there ran a risk of something going wrong. Speaking of the doctrine revealed, not spelling, grammar or punctuation. Doctrinally speaking yes, but not on the proof reading. And none of these changes will alter the meaning of the sentence or concept being talked about. Okay, you have a quote, but what errors are they speaking of? You have only listed a few grammatical errors, which really will not change the meaning of anything. This is not contrary to mormon teachings at all. I admit this is a confusing point for a lot of people because the term "Father" can be used to describe Jesus Christ. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Creator of this world and everything in it, under the direction of His Father. As the Creator of this world, Jesus is said to be the our Father. There is a distinction between Jesus as being called our Father, and G_d the Father, who is the Father of Jesus. The change was made to bring clairity to the reader as to whom was being spoken of.

Well, I don't know your boyfreind at all, but if he is anything like me if may be a practical thing. I keep a set of a few different passwords that I will modify with a number or capitalization, and they have served me for the last 10-15 years. So instead of having to memorize a bunch of different passwords, I have a set few. As was mentioned before, if he had no problem sharing it with you, then it probably means nothing more than a password to him. If you have doubts or need to set your mind at rest, the bring it up in a non-accusatory way, because you don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill, so to speak.