xanmad33

How about we start by considering context and how about we also consider the FULL weight of scripture? That way there is no need for "rigid" dogmatic arguments... We are his creation. He created us out of NOTHING .... and I quote: "Joseph Smith taught that matter is eternal and God had no power to create out of nothing. God reorganized already present elements, which have no beginning or end and cannot be destroyed (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 350-352). “Since Mormons believe that the elements are eternal, it follows that they deny the ex nihilo creation” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism 1:400). In Christianity, since there are no actualities that are coeternal with God, it is understood that God created all things "ex-nihilo," or out of nothing. God made the world without any use of pre-existent materials. God is the primary cause of all things (Psalm 33:6; John 1:3; Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:3). " In the morning I will go over each verse IN CONTEXT for you A-train, gnight! peace and blessings

And they have been refuted. Here it is further clarified; taken from "the oneness of God": In other words, the Bible describes infinite God in finite, human terms in order that we may better comprehend Him. For example, the heart of God denotes His intellect and His emotions, not a blood-pumping organ (Genesis 6:6; 8:21). When God said heaven was His throne and earth was His footstool, He described His omnipresence, not a pair of literal feet propped up on the globe (Isaiah 66:1). When God said His right hand spanned the heavens, He described His great power and not a large hand stretching through the atmosphere (Isaiah 48:13). "The eyes of the LORD are in every place" does not mean that God has physical eyes in every location but indicates His omnipresence and omniscience (Proverbs 15:3). When Jesus cast devils out by the finger of God, He did not pull down a giant finger from heaven, but He exercised the power of God (Luke 11:20). The blast of God's nostrils was not literal particles emitted by giant heavenly nostrils, but the strong east wind sent by God to part the Red Sea (Exodus 15:8; 14:21). In fact, literal interpretation of all the visions and physical descriptions of God would lead to the belief that God has wings (Psalm 91:4). In short, we believe God as a Spirit does not have a body unless He chooses to manifest Himself in a bodily form, which He did in the person of Jesus Christ. (See Chapter 4 - JESUS IS GOD.) Some say that in the Old Testament God had a spirit body visible to other spirit beings such as angels. They raise this hypothesis because human spirits seem to have a recognizable form visible to other spirits (Luke 16:22-31) and because some passages indicate the angels and Satan could see a visible manifestation of God in the Old Testament (I Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6). However, God did not need a spirit body to do this because He could have manifested Himself at various times to other spirits just as He did to man. One key verse of Scripture implies that ordinarily God is not visible even to spirit beings unless He chooses to manifest Himself in some way: "God was manifest in the flesh… seen of angels" (I Timothy 3:16). At the least, if God did have some type of spirit body He certainly was not confined to it like other spirit beings are confined to their bodies; for then He would not be truly omnipresent. For example, God's omnipresence means He could have appeared simultaneously to men on earth and to angels in heaven. Also, we must realize that in New Testament times God has chosen to reveal Himself fully through Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). There is no possibility of separating God and Jesus, and there is no God visible outside of Jesus. " I believe I have answered you in many posts already, it seems to me this argument is picking and chosing what fits and ignoring the rest..but I digress.... How about a question.. In Alma 11:26-29 Amulek tells Zeezrom that there is only one "true and living God." If that is true, which of the three Gods in the Mormon godhead is not true and/or living? Also how about looking at the very definition of "OMNIPOTENCE" : The word "omni" means "all" and "potent" means "powerful." If two or more beings had the ability to have "all" power, the different powers would cancel each other out and therefore render the word meaningless. Just because he choses to manifest himself in different ways like a bush, or a mountain or Jesus even, does not in ANY was negate his omnipresence. That is not what Mormons believe. Mormons believe that there are 3 DISTINCT PERSONAGES that make up the godhead. I have CLEARLY outlined our differing doctrines on that in MANY ways in previous posts. "Heavenly Father. Also referred to as God the Father or Elohim, a created being who was originally a mortal man and became God at a certain point in time (The Gospel Through the Ages, p. 104). God is the offspring of another god who was also once a man, ad infinitum (The Seer, p. 132). Heavenly Father is but one of many gods. " Instead of making these accusations, why dont you prove it scripturally? Give me the scriptures that say that God has a body of flesh and bone in heaven

Isaiah 44:6 This is what the LORD says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Skalen, if you believe there is another god apart from Jehovah, why would God not aknowledge that here? This is an absolute statement. The Bible defines prayer as flesh praying to deity ie: the flesh part of Jesus' humanity was praying to the divine that is in him and also in Heaven because it is onipresent

Back to the Nature of God for a sec... I have another quest... since you love Isaiah Isaiah 44:6,8 says that there is no God beside the God of the Bible and that this God does not know of any other gods. Consider what that says...If that is Jesus (Jehovah) speaking—as attested to by Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie (The Promised Messiah, p.312)—does that mean Jesus does not know His own Father? I don't understand that?

Thanks Skalen, it makes sense... I disagree with the Bible part but I can see your beliefs

Skalen, I'm trying to make sense here if you can enlighten me... Scripture's are the words from prophets correct? So by Mormon definition, scriptures are the written words of God -as given through the prophets..isn't it illogical to try to put one above the other?

The Bible does not support this. Found this artice for you: The belief that God the Father is called Elohim and Jesus is called Jehovah does not agree with what the Bible says. In actuality, in Hebrew the word for "God" is the word "elohim." Likewise, the word for the name of God (elohim) is "Jehovah." In the Bible, when the word "Jehovah" appears in the Hebrew text, it is rendered as LORD (all caps) in the English text. Also, the Hebrew word "elohim" is translated as "God." Please consider the following verses: "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" (Isaiah 43:10-11). This verse is important because if you read what it is saying, it states that Jehovah (Lord) is stating that there will be no God (elohim) formed after him. . In other words, this verse is stating that the LORD (Jehovah), is elohim. Let's look at two more verses. "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6). In this verse, LORD is Jehovah in the Hebrew. Jehovah is saying there is no God (elohim) besides him. "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8). The context of this verse is that Jehovah (LORD) is speaking. He states here that there is no God (elohim) besides him. He is stating that he does not know of any other elohim (God) besides himself. My point is that the name of God (elohim) is Jehovah (LORD) and that the LORD is stating that he alone is God. In other words, Jehovah is stating that he alone is elohim. Therefore, the idea that God "the Father" is called "elohim" and that the "son" is called "Jehovah" is erroneous. In actuality, the name of God is Jehovah. Remember, in Hebrew text LORD equals Jehovah. God equals elohim. "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him" (Deut. 4:35). "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else" (1 Kings 8:60). "Know ye that the LORD he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves;" (Psalm 100:2). "And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God" (Zech. 13:9).

I persoanlly believe the Bible speaks the way it does about God and as often as it does for a purpose. It is vital to understand the God you worship. (At least Biblically it is) but i also agree with you your statement and I would add that sometimes we seek out other "gods" *unintentionally* because we have been blinded by lies..

thanks willow :)

This is perhaps where our strongest difference lies...

It depend on who you are praying to. I have clarified that argument in posts past. It's not about labels, it's about belief For "whosovever believes" shall have everlasting life, but then the Bible also makes clear who you are to believe in. this thread was to look at that aspect.

no, girl, I am not offended PEACE! and Im just trying to be clear about my motives that have so often come into question here, that's all My olive brach of peace and friendship is extended to you <3

That is an avenue I have explored here and is completely relevant of a question. I never said unequivically you do or you don't.....I simply asked a few questions that are a logical argument if the Bible is true. Yes, I did ask that, and I was completely interested in the answer. It was not a leading question if that's what you are insinuating. I never said you said otherwise

Well Misshalfway, I started this thread to get that answer myself I am trying to understand who your God is....There have been a few conflicting statements, and I'm just not all the way sure yet, but that's my personaly thoughts, and thats one reason I'm here :)

Elgama, I don't feel hostility in those posts There have been a couple though that yes, I have felt very real hosility from I never claimed that Christians don't interpret the godhead differently, my claim was that Christianity worships one God. I cannot speak for every "Christian", it's a pretty loose term these days. Just as Momon is... Aren't there more than 100 different organizations that lay claim to being part of the Latter Day Saint movement?

The question was regarding infant baptism Skalen, and that it's not specifically addressed in scriputre but thank you! and regarding that verse...we can start a whole other thread about that too

YOUR ACCUSATION IS ABOVE>>>> I never said they did did I? Hence the REASON for this thread in the FIRST place. Never tried to change your mind, just tried to read all scripture quoted in context with the full weight of the entire scripture. And as you said you are confused by my beliefs, I also am confused by yours... Yet another reason for this discussion

God is not responsible for what people do in his name. A look at your own church's history should show you that. Regarding eternal fate, I don't know, nobody does. All I can say is that I serve a loving, Just, merciful, righteous God and all his judgements are pure.

Its actually paul speaking sorry for the mix up, Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,

I am sorry if that hurt you, I was up late last night and I was trying to show Skalen that I appreciated the way he treats me in posts , that's all. In the other thread, I felt very judged by you, Perhaps it was my own interpretation of your words, but I did not feel very good reading your accusations. I thank you for your continued participation in threads, and I think you have been more and more loving, you are probably a very kind person, and I never meant to insinuate otherwise, but truthfully my post was to thank Skalen for trying to see the best in me through everything I write. Even now you accuse me of attacking your beliefs, but am I? I thought I was engaged in a discussion? Perhaps there have been a few posts where I have responded in more anger than love, but I have never told anyone here they are going to hell have I? Well since we both believe the Bible to be true, then we both know He is the true God correct? The God(s) in the LDS faith is described as being significantly different than the God we both have already aknowkledged is true in the Bible, so my questions have focused on that. And seeking to understand that better. If you can grasp this for a second...IF your BOM, is in fact not of God, but perhaps a lie (remember I am saying IF, for arguments sake) then could it also be concludud that praying to the spirit in the book would also be praying to a decietful spirit not of God? That was the point I was making earlier...IF. In order to fully know God, we would have to know every particle and speck of his being.... We dont have the capacity in our brains to know the FULL knowledge of his glory. The term "know" in the Bible is often used in an intimate way...RELATIONSHIP. That's what it's ALLLLLLL about. He want to know us intimately and for us to know him intimately. He want a relationship with us. If your still confused you can provide me with the verse in question and I will look it up more and try to help

for some reason my words turned pink in some places there, sorry!

My claim was he did not have a physical body until he manifested himself for us physically in Jesus. That does not negate his power and omnipresence though. Why? If we consider what all the scriputes tell us, then is's perfectly true, our minds just cannot grasp the full imact of that statement. I can see what your trying to say (see im getting better huh?) But as my previous post pointed out...one does not negate the other. God is not held to our human comprehention, it may not make sense to our minds, but nevertheless, it is what scripture says Jesus said all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him, but that does not negate Gods power and ominpresence. Why can't God have it both ways? I agree, it will never fully make sense to us your right about that. But we are provided all this information through scripture about God's nature because it matters. It matters a lot. Prayer is defined in the Bible as flesh praying to deity If you are born again, you speak to the Holy Spirit Who dwells "in" you. But in Jesus dwelt the fullness of the Godhead bodily," He was the manifestation of God in the physical Form of a man. Yet God is not a man but a Spirit. as a man Jesus prayed, but as God, He heard and responded to those prayers.

I appreciate the advice given to me in such a loving manner, thank you. I tend to err on the debate non-emotion side of things and only focus on what is at hand. Perhaps I could say "i understand you points" more, thank you Everyone should know this from my original post on this thread, I am trying to stay away from emotion so as not to cloud my points... Sometimes I get overwhelmed with all the questions and me being only one person, so I get even more focused on the point and not the person, please forgive me for that My questions have been regarding the Bible because that's what I believe in fully and since you believe in it too, I wanted to see why we both come away with such differences. I am having a great discussion, right Skalen I consider every point made but then I may have more questions about it. If anyone feels hurt, please know that is not my intention, at all. Sometimes I feel anger behind a post and I may respond back in anger, but I am trying hard not to, and please forgive me if I have. Religion is personal, that's why I chose the internet to get my questions answered, and to further discuss Mormon beliefs and the Bible. I don't want to upset anyone esp in real life :) So, peace, love and blessings everyone!

We are not omnipresent, yes we have a spirit but ours is not everywhere at once. Fist of all I think we need to start by aknowledging that God cannot ever be put into some box of human rationalle. Any intellectual argument could not ever define him. If any argument could put him into complete understanding in that box in our mind, then he wouldn't be God. But for the sake of argument let us consider: Yes, God in a sense is in everything because he created everything. Scripture tells us he is holding everything together. All things are held together by the power of his word. We cannot ever fully comprehend that. God has physically manifested himself or made himself visible to us in a physical way even though he is spirit. It doesn't negate or cancel his spirit. Jesus said, If you have seen me, you have seen the father. He is fully God in Jesus as Jesus said "all the fullness of the Godhead dwells in me. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily, but since it is omnipresent it could still be everywhere. This is the mystery...God is singular...It all began with him. He is the only God... But as a singular God he is also a plural God. It's not either or it's both. That goes beyond any human rationalle, we cannot comprehend that. No amount of intellectualizing will ever make that easier to grasp. Everything he created is physical, his creation in heaven is a different composition that that of earth, he holds all things together. What an awesome God! a-train, there are many things I could say about Joseph Smiths claims being unbiblical, Insinuating God was once a man etc. Will it matter to you? At the end of it all, you chose to believe Joseph, and that's perfectly Ok. No hard feelings. I am just a person enjoying a religious debate/discussion. Peace

So you don't believe that "God the father" has a seperate body or personage from Jesus, as Joseph Smith taight? i need further clarification on what you are ACTUALLY saying here...